American Nations (Woodard) and Republican voters estimated to support Trump (Cohn):

There are just too many inconsistencies. Yankeedom is bifurcated between extremely strong support for Trump at its eastern end – the betting markets indicate he is highly likely to continue sweeping that entire area as he already did with Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire – but his support begins to crumble once we get to Wisconsin, which straddles The Foundry and the Breadbasket, to say nothing of agragian Minnesota. Trump’s support hits a veritable wall on the Kansan and Oklohoma border, regardless that Greater Appalachia is supposed to extend well into those two states. The Midlands with their weird and unnatural borders are completely useless at explaining anything about Trump’s support; they range from the heavily anti-Trump west to the pretty clearly pro-Trump Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Great Lakes region.

Just when I was about to give up making sense of these patterns in any rigorous HBD- or culture-related way (not that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive), I dig out another map from what was the precursor to Colin Woodard’s work: Joel Garreau’s 1981 book The Nine Nations of North America. Now incidentally, I have always preferred Garreau’s version of the American nations to Woodard’s. Although Woodard is more historically inclined, drawing heavily from on David Hackett Fischer’s magesterial Albion’s Seed, Garreau had the benefit of 100,000kms-worth of travel throughout the Americas, thousands of personal conversations, and a greater appreciation of modern economic geography.

Garreau’s map is also a heck of a lot more pleasant to just look at.

See the map above based on Garreau’s work drawn by Richard Furno in 1981. The American Nations as envisaged by Garreau actually look like nations, complete with plausible borders and symbols that can be readily associated with their specific folkways; nations that might one day conceivably arise in the wake of some apocalyptic event such as The Flame Deluge or The Change.

And, it just so happens that unlike Woodard’s Nations, the American Nations of Garreau actually do correlate remarkably well with Trump’s support!

American Nations (Garreau) and Republican voters estimated to support Trump (Cohn):

Most strikingly, the huge demographic reservoirs that are The Foundry and Dixie are solidly behind Trump. The two biggest exceptions – that prove the rule – are Texas and Ohio, which went to Cruz and Kasich, respectively, on account of their home field advantage; nonetheless, Trump was respectably second in both states. (Robot Rubio was unable to repeat this in Florida). Half-Forge, Half-Breadbasket Wisconsin is 50/50 on Trump: The polls say yay, while The betting sites say nay. (Update: No longer. I wrote this before Trump’s ill-considered remarks on abortion; contra the liberal hysteria, he merely proved that his support for social conservatism had always been superficial. You could almost feel the gears whirling in his head as he tried to simulate an answer that would appeal to God-fearing conservatives and he failed. This has further tilted The Breadlands against him, and now Wisconsin leans heavily towards Cruz).

Trump also has convincing predominance in New England (except Maine) and most of the MaxAmerican borderlands. In contrast, the limits to Trump’s support are clearly demarcated by The Breadbasket – that plain, bucolic of conservative, mild-mannered Teutons. The tringular slice that Dixie makes into Oklohoma is reflected in the primaries results, in which there is a small blue concetration for Trump in the south-east of the state set against a uniform yellow in support of Cruz elsewhere. The Empty Quarter’s low population densities, with concentrations typically separated by long distances and mountains, have a rich variety of political cultures. Brash, glitzy, casino-mad Nevada, hosting Randall Flagg’s capital Las Vegas and Reno, where men get shot for all sorts of reasons, gave Trump 46% in the primaries; utterly straitlaced and civic Utah is so uncompromisingly set against The Donald it might even emerge from the other side of the horseshoe and support Hillary Clinton in these elections should the Republic frontrunner become its nominee.

That said, like The Breadbasket, the Empty Quarter – both on average and those that triangulate between the two poles that are Las Vegas and Salt Lake City – are predominantly against Trump. Of the seven major Nations of North America ala Garreau, at least three of them – Dixie, The Foundry, and New England – clearly support Trump (thus, remarkably, bridging the most classical American division – that between the Union and the Confederacy). Two of them are clearly opposed – The Breadbasket and the Empty Quarter. Meanwhile, it remains to be seen where the sympathies of MexAmerica and Ecotopia lie. Arizona went for Trump with a large margin, who is also popular in SoCal; but looks set to fail in New Mexico. Data on Ecotopia is still very sparse, though one admittedly old poll suggested Trump will take Oregon.

So the media soundbites about how Trump is redrawing the political map are not exaggerated. But as Republican grandees have taken to arguing, the way it has been done is not to the party’s benefit: When polls show that Trump is slated to lose Utah as Republican nominee, then one might legitimately think that that is a good case for denying Trump his nomination and all concerns for the will of the Republican voter be damned.

But that’s assuming Trump plays by the standard conservative rulebook.

If, instead, he were to veer even further towards economic populism during the Presidential campaign while toning down on “triggering” rhetoric, he stands to gain serious kudos running against a Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, who encapsulates the arrogance and mendacity that even many liberals admit characterize the Clinton Clique (Glenn Greenwald was entirely correct in his playful argument that nominating Clinton over Sanders is a “huge electability gamble”). This is not unimaginable, since Trump’s protectionist arguments look good set against the Krugmanian orthodoxy on free trade that mainstream Democrats espouse. Furthermore, unburdened from having to compete with Cruz for the ultraconservative vote, Trump can win over many liberal White voters by dredging up his past reasonably progressive stances on healthcare and climate change (after all, Trump voters are primarily anti-establishment, and that includes oil companies, as Slate magazine discovered to its horror).

Imagine Trump losing Utah… but winning New York.

Sounds completely impossible, but all sorts of impossible things have been Happening in this campaign, so really – why not?

At [Cruz's] own rally, though, there was at least one skeptical voice. “Nationalism is the new thing, man,” said Jordan Voor, 30, a Trump supporter who works nearby. “I just kind of want to watch the establishment burn,” Mr. Voor added. “What’s the point of being conservative anymore? It’s a failing ideology.”

So it is understandable why the NRO hardlinerswho can’t wait for the white working class to die out, nationalist neocons whose nationalism regrettably applies not to the US but to another country, and even conservative “reformists” like Ross Douthat are willing to stop at nothing to sabotage Trump’s nomination… or even manipulate arcane Electoral College rules from the 19th century to invalidate his Presidency should he win the popular vote.

Unfortunately for them, however, the only part of the country that still supports their project of transforming Americans into the La Raza Cósmica of the 2050s are those few Americans of The Breadbasket and The Empty Quarter who still primarily live by the social mores – and demographic homogeneity – of the 1950s.

Meanwhile, those Americans who have had to contend with vibrant diversity, shuttered factories, SJWs, and the manifold other joys of late modernity have started to chew thoughtfully on a certain crimson-hued psychotropic substance.

That is the entirety of The Foundry and Dixie, and most of New England, MexAmerica, Ecotopia, and the Las Vegas enclave.

That is about 70% of the US White population.

If Donald Trump can figure out how to kick them into high-energy mode, the White House will be his to lose.

I’ve suggested this solution to the Trump demographic puzzle, but have not had time to crunch the data yet:

his appeal comes down to two things. Places where manufacturing industry is collapsing/collapsed, and places where working class whites have regular contact with working class folk of other races.

Minnesota, Utah? Not industrial heartland, and very little ethnic diversity outside of the big cities.

Trump’s big pull is that working class whites feel like they have been abandoned, left behind, or despised by their leaders. If politics is a patronage game, they’ve been left without a patron. Trump intends to end that. This message will have most salience in the places where that really have been left behind economically (Michigan et. al.), or places where WCW must deal with the daily hardships that come with trying to live in balkanized multi-racial/cultural communities (Mississippi, Florida, et. al)

Places where manufacturing industry is collapsing/collapsed, and places where working class whites have regular contact with working class folk of other races.

This is a standard and pretty accurate explanation, but this doesn't explain:

* New England - Vermont, New Hampshire (both lily-white and quite well off, solidly for Trump especially the latter.
* Massachusetts (almost 50%!) and in all likelihood, Connecticut - Some of the very wealthiest places in the US, and quite homogenous to boot.
* Oregon - According to that Cohn map, Trump is bright red around SJW homeland Portlandia. But also heavily White.

"his appeal comes down to two things. Places where manufacturing industry is collapsing/collapsed, and places where working class whites have regular contact with working class folk of other races. "

I think you're on to something, but by this logic, New Jersey should have higher support than Massachusetts. Both have manufacturing/union jobs in decline, but NJ definitely has more minorities, especially of the NAM variety that give everyone the headaches that cause them to question diversity.

http://www.unz.com/mhudson/traumatized-worker-syndrome/ A politician’s job is to deliver whoever voted for you to your backers, who are on Wall Street. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, but especially if you are a Democrat – that’s really the Wall Street wing of the American political system. The Republicans are for the corporate monopoly, oil and gas wing of it.

America has cheap fracked energy to make increased US manufacturing feasible. So Trump as pres could be in a position to help the industrial areas, though he would have to reign in powerful energy corporations from selling abroad at greater profits. But Clinton is the champion of actual powers that be (Wall Street) who fear working class mobilisation on principle. I think foreign policy is the key. Behind the scenes, Trump has to start quietly assuring Israel that he will break with the current US policy about the West Bank, and run interference for them whatever they decide to do in any future war Israel is drawn into with a radical Sunni states. The neocons won’t be able to go against the leaders of the Jewish state who are begining to see where orthodox Republican and Obama and Clinton-style policies are taking Israel.

In a Wall Street Journal editorial titled “In Defense of Sarah Palin,” [Norman] Podhoretz wrote, “I hereby declare that I would rather be ruled by the Tea Party than by the Democratic Party, and I would rather have Sarah Palin sitting in the Oval Office than Barack Obama.”

It’s important to be mindful of what the American Nations actually represent: regional genetic differences across the continent.

As with anything that’s inherently fuzzy, there are many ways of group them, especially depending on what variables you’re looking at. Woodard’s nations are the superior model because he actually takes settlement patterns into account. His nations follow the settlement of the old stock Americans. Some of the nations will be more internally consistent than others because those areas have received little subsequent immigration (the nations of the South) or exist specifically because of assortative migration (the Left Coast). But the nations of the Old North (Yankeedom and the Midlands) have received heavy immigration and that has changed their character considerably – Italians and Celts in the eastern parts and Germanics in the western parts. This is why you often see an east-west split. And then there is “boiling off” that has occurred in many areas.

The standard American Nations pattern is evident in the Democratic primaries. And of course the general election will revert to the usual pattern.

...in the 2008 election, Barack Obama won the former Republican strongholds of Virginia and North Carolina as well as Florida; Obama won Virginia and Florida again in 2012 and lost North Carolina by only 2.04%.

Might the distinction between the two groupings be summarized (very roughly) this way: the Woodward nations reflect genes and the Cohn nations reflect culture? Then, the better fit of the Cohn map suggests that culture doesn't reduce to genetics.

Interesting. I have some background in linguistics, and Woodard's map looks an awful lot like dialectological maps of North America, e.g. the so-called "Inland North" dialect grouping that covers "Yankeedom", or "Greater Appalachia" corresponding to the "Inland South" dialect continuum (not to be confused with "Coastal South"). Your own point about the settlement of immigrants in the eastern parts of some, but not all, "nations" meshes with this quite well: we'd expect the incomers to assimilate linguistically, but not genetically. It's interesting that quite possibly they have altered the local political landscape, even as they assimilated in other ways.

Garreau's map may also have some good sociological basis, but it does not match the historical settlement patterns so well; the correspondence to linguistic isoglosses is also much weaker.

It's important to be mindful of what the American Nations actually represent: regional genetic differences across the continent.

As with anything that's inherently fuzzy, there are many ways of group them, especially depending on what variables you're looking at. Woodard's nations are the superior model because he actually takes settlement patterns into account. His nations follow the settlement of the old stock Americans. Some of the nations will be more internally consistent than others because those areas have received little subsequent immigration (the nations of the South) or exist specifically because of assortative migration (the Left Coast). But the nations of the Old North (Yankeedom and the Midlands) have received heavy immigration and that has changed their character considerably – Italians and Celts in the eastern parts and Germanics in the western parts. This is why you often see an east-west split. And then there is "boiling off" that has occurred in many areas.

The standard American Nations pattern is evident in the Democratic primaries. And of course the general election will revert to the usual pattern.

…in the 2008 election, Barack Obama won the former Republican strongholds of Virginia and North Carolina as well as Florida; Obama won Virginia and Florida again in 2012 and lost North Carolina by only 2.04%.

It doesn’t matter what policies Trump espouses, he is going to lose in a landslide because he is so horrifically unpopular on a personal level. And not just with women: He even has a 51% negative rating with white men.

Support for a fence on the Mexican border has collapsed down to 38%, because Trump’s radioactivity contaminates the policies he is associated with.

The theory that Trump might win by energizing the white working class and scrambling the map wasn’t completely implausible, when he was only losing to Hillary! by three or four points in the polling averages. But when he’s losing to her by an average of eleven points, it’s outright delusional.

A Trump nomination would be an absolute disaster for nationalists and the alt-right. His epic defeat will be wrongly blamed on his pro-borders pronouncements, and the GOP establishment will claim vindication. If the GOP Senate and House go down with him, which is quite possible, Democrats will ram through an immigration bill to the left of the Gang of Eight. Even if the GOP holds the House, there’s a good chance that Speaker Ryan will strike some sort of amnesty deal with the Democratic Senate and White House.

And even if by some miracle Trump overcomes a double-digit polling deficit and wins the White House. it’s unlikely he’ll be much better on immigration than Cruz would have (in fact, having backed off his past support for H1-B increases, Cruz actually has a slightly better NumbersUSA grade than Trump). Trump has never explicitly promised to cut overall legal immigration levels. He has promised some form of touchback amnesty for an unspecified number of “good” illegals. He’s defended “guest worker” programs in the debates using the “jobs Americans won’t do” canard. So what exactly is it about Trump that makes him so much better than Cruz, it’s worth it for immigration hawks to gamble on him, depite the fact that Cruz polls eight points better against Hillary!? Sure, Cruz would probably lose too, but by a Romney-esqe rather than Mondale-esqe margin, making it more likely that the GOP holds Congress.

Imagine Trump losing Utah… but winning New York. Sounds completely impossible, but all sorts of impossible things have been Happening in this campaign, so really – why not?

Because one way in which this campaign hasn’t been unusual, is that the polls have basically been right. The most recent poll, from Quinnipiac (taken before the abortion debacle), shows Hillary! beating Trump in NY by 20 points. That’s only four points better than Cruz, despite it being his home state and Cruz having denigrated “NY values.”

Trump has been hurt by the 24/7 attacks. And the attacks have been coming largely from he GOP/conservative establishment and conservative media. If Trump doesn't win the nomination, I'm voting Democrat and I will have some serious schadenfreude every day liberal totalitarianism takes away the economic future and religious freedom and cultural identity of middle America. I'm going to champion unfettered immigration and refugee placement in Cruz country.

Where will they come from, this dream candidate Trump's failure would be ruining the future prospects for? Trump is the best of what there actually is, and he was a long time building up to this. Anyone else promising a wall would have a much tougher job to get this close to being elected . He is not of the religious right, and not locked into Wall Street and existing foreign policies. He is going to have to articulate the interests of manufacturing and Israel and if he indicates willingness to give some help on those issues has a reasonable chance of getting important Republican party sectors on his side.

The animus against Palin was partly because she is a woman. Polls certainly do not overstate Trump's support but I wonder about Clinton's. I suspect Trump supporters may be much more likely to refuse to tell pollsters or mislead as to their true intentions. In the worst case, I can't see how Trump running and failing would leave serious immigration control proposals any worse off than they were before.

White nationalists surely benefit from Trump's candidacy. (The Daily Stormer can't be wrong.) What would be awful for them would be a Trump presidency. It would make them look like idiots for having believed his promises despite the overwhelming evidence that he doesn't even intend them for belief.

Who do all those people that are registering as Republicans to vote for Trump vote for when Trump is no longer the candidate? Do you seriously think they will vote for Cruz? If anything, they will vote against the Republicans for their dirty tricks against Trump.

Cruz will do worse than Trump in the swing states of Ohio, PA, Florida and thus cannot beat Hillary. there has been almost no attacks against Cruz, as all the PAC money has been spent attacking Trump. Once he has to face scrutiny and voters get to know him, his poll numbers against Hillary will drop. The media has ignored Cruz, as they continue to attack Trump. Thus all the negatives about Trump are out in the open, His poll numbers will soar after he is nominated and the GOP is behind him to beat Hillary.

Trump will win all the states Romney won and just needs Ohio, PA and Florida. Trump may even win New Hampshire and NJ (if he gets 15% of the black vote). this is why the media fears Trump and has not been criticizing Cruz. They know Hillary will easily beat Cruz once the Media and democrats start targeting him.

That’s right, those lily-white farming/livestock-grazing communities have not had the real opportunity to see the utter mayhem of the large democrat run, gun-banning, PC correct cities urban dwellers have been enduring for decades. The evening news is two-dimensional and far, far away.

Their personal awaking to this cancer will be if their children head off to university and report back to mom and dad the culture they have encountered and, willing or unwilling, are being indoctrinated into.

That’s right, those lily-white farming/livestock-grazing communities have not had the real opportunity to see the utter mayhem of the large democrat run, gun-banning, PC correct cities urban dwellers have been enduring for decades. The evening news is two-dimensional and far, far away.

Trump is strong in Greater Appalachia, much of which is lily White. Ethnicity is a better fit.

A Dr. Smith, University of the South, once opined that “the people whom the government gave control of TV were criminally insane.” There was the point where industrialization drove urbanization and thus, nothing to do but work or be entertained. Real world body knowledge of cause and effect was lost and replaced by magic. Hence, not only a working class worthy of being despised, but a “government of the people and for the people” deserving to be despised, from the notional leadership of elites, down through the most brain dead banger or cracker, most, if not all, defaulted on citizenship, getting their politics and religion from movies, games, crock show hosts and other demagogues with other pulpits, rather than from sincere study and polite discussion which often yields rational behavior, rather than magic spells.

It doesn't matter what policies Trump espouses, he is going to lose in a landslide because he is so horrifically unpopular on a personal level. And not just with women: He even has a 51% negative rating with white men.

Support for a fence on the Mexican border has collapsed down to 38%, because Trump's radioactivity contaminates the policies he is associated with.

The theory that Trump might win by energizing the white working class and scrambling the map wasn't completely implausible, when he was only losing to Hillary! by three or four points in the polling averages. But when he's losing to her by an average of eleven points, it's outright delusional.

A Trump nomination would be an absolute disaster for nationalists and the alt-right. His epic defeat will be wrongly blamed on his pro-borders pronouncements, and the GOP establishment will claim vindication. If the GOP Senate and House go down with him, which is quite possible, Democrats will ram through an immigration bill to the left of the Gang of Eight. Even if the GOP holds the House, there's a good chance that Speaker Ryan will strike some sort of amnesty deal with the Democratic Senate and White House.

And even if by some miracle Trump overcomes a double-digit polling deficit and wins the White House. it's unlikely he'll be much better on immigration than Cruz would have (in fact, having backed off his past support for H1-B increases, Cruz actually has a slightly better NumbersUSA grade than Trump). Trump has never explicitly promised to cut overall legal immigration levels. He has promised some form of touchback amnesty for an unspecified number of "good" illegals. He's defended "guest worker" programs in the debates using the "jobs Americans won't do" canard. So what exactly is it about Trump that makes him so much better than Cruz, it's worth it for immigration hawks to gamble on him, depite the fact that Cruz polls eight points better against Hillary!? Sure, Cruz would probably lose too, but by a Romney-esqe rather than Mondale-esqe margin, making it more likely that the GOP holds Congress.

Imagine Trump losing Utah… but winning New York. Sounds completely impossible, but all sorts of impossible things have been Happening in this campaign, so really – why not?

Because one way in which this campaign hasn't been unusual, is that the polls have basically been right. The most recent poll, from Quinnipiac (taken before the abortion debacle), shows Hillary! beating Trump in NY by 20 points. That's only four points better than Cruz, despite it being his home state and Cruz having denigrated "NY values."

Since you take so seriously general election polls done this long before the election, could you tell us how you enjoyed the Mondale and Dukakis presidencies?

According to historical Gallup polling from 1952 to today, who wins the white male vote or gets them to turnout, wins the election. If they stay home, the candidate loses… Trump has rallied his base, and if he gets some Hispanics, and some women, he may have enough to win.

He doesn’t need the black vote, the the liberal vote, they are predictable and don’t decide elections, save for Obama.

If Trump get’s his base, some women, and some hispanics, he will win… Just look at these polls…

...in the 2008 election, Barack Obama won the former Republican strongholds of Virginia and North Carolina as well as Florida; Obama won Virginia and Florida again in 2012 and lost North Carolina by only 2.04%.

I live in the county of Ayrshire, where (contrary to what you keep saying) most of the Ulster Scots came from . See this map. South west Scotland is actually quite similar to East Anglia inasmuch as it has repeatedly been the origin of often successful insurgencies and religious movements from the Freemasons (Mother Lodge), Robert the Bruce at Turnberry Castle (near where Trump has invested BTW) to the Covananters' Sanquhar Declaration.

In the twentieth century, the Covenanters were appropriated as forerunners of the working-class struggle for socialism and equality […] leaders could justifiably point to the early class consciousness of the Covenanters, to their hatred of landowners and aristocrats and their search for a collective society based on equality and mutual support.

It is also, remarkably in view of its sparse pop, the seat of a concentration of accomplishment according to this map. So lets have no more nonsense about the Ulster Scots being from the Borders, eh? By the way I live in the Scottish Kilmarnock, not the one in Virginia.

Anyway, it seems to me that unless they are robots the people in areas will exercise ecological rationality that overbears ancestral propensities the wealth of the population is an important factor. Now the Ulster Scots were from land where the valleys were boggy. The Germans often knew bette. It seems to me that midwest farmers are relatively wealthy. The Scandinavian and Germans disproportionately benefitted from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts. You cannot really say those communities would be voting the same if they were concentrated in barren mountains and rustbelts.

That's right, those lily-white farming/livestock-grazing communities have not had the real opportunity to see the utter mayhem of the large democrat run, gun-banning, PC correct cities urban dwellers have been enduring for decades. The evening news is two-dimensional and far, far away.

Their personal awaking to this cancer will be if their children head off to university and report back to mom and dad the culture they have encountered and, willing or unwilling, are being indoctrinated into.

That’s right, those lily-white farming/livestock-grazing communities have not had the real opportunity to see the utter mayhem of the large democrat run, gun-banning, PC correct cities urban dwellers have been enduring for decades. The evening news is two-dimensional and far, far away.

Trump is strong in Greater Appalachia, much of which is lily White. Ethnicity is a better fit.

My only conclusion in looking at all these maps is that when (not if) the breakup of the U.S. occurs it’s going to be very messy and involve Canada, Mexico, and islands in the Carribean. Who’s going to end up controlling the nuclear weapons?

Since you take so seriously general election polls done this long before the election, could you tell us how you enjoyed the Mondale and Dukakis presidencies?

Demographically and politically, the 80s were a different world. The electorate was much whiter, and whites were more of a swing vote than they are now, so much bigger polling swings were possible. Also, even when Reagan and Bush were behind on the “who would you vote for” question (actually Reagan always led Mondale, but he was behind Carter until the fall), they never had the fantastically bad approval numbers that Trump does. Trump would be the most unpopular candidate that either major party has nominated in decades, and maybe ever.

In the last 20 years, there are no examples of a presidential candidate coming back to win from a more than 6-point polling deficit in April, and very few if any examples of a Senate candidate doing so either. Is it completely impossible that Trump could do it? Maybe not, but again, what exactly is the big payoff that nationalists/alt-right would get with President Trump that makes such a longshot gamble worth it, given the huge downside risk? At best, he’d be only slightly better on immigration than Cruz would, and arguably he’d be worse (since Cruz has pledged no legalization of illegals, and Trump has repeatedly promised an amnesty of unspecified size).

Trump would be the most unpopular candidate that either major party has nominated in decades, and maybe ever.

But he'd be running against one of the most unpopular-- and unnatural-- positions held by any politician in US history-- that we need to import a hundred million low-wage foreigners to do jobs Americans don't want to do. Oh, and tax ourselves to subsidize these foreigners. And compete with them for increasingly scarce housing.

I have no idea if Trump will push this issue. But if he does, you have to explain to us how the almost equally unpopular HRC will win your predicted landslide when saddled with this albatross.

Trump is unpopular, but his stances are not. Can Hillary say the same?

Without Donald Trump in the race, we'd have Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio arguing over whether 6 months or 2 years was the appropriate period for a path to citizenship. Trump was the first candidate to break out of the mold and actually advocate deportation of illegals. He, and no one else, shifted the Overton Window and that's why the cuckservatives hate him with such a passion.

Thank God the AltRight has Donald Trump in the race, for no sane man would tolerate it.

… or even manipulate arcane Electoral College rules from the 19th century to invalidate his Presidency should he win the popular vote.

Ouch. A fine piece, except for this fly in the soup. The Electoral College “rules” are federal, not “arcane”. There is no popular vote– each state has its own voting requirements. Today they differ on ID, registration deadline, method of tabulation, etc, rather than race, sex, or age. But they’re still very real. Combining them is cheating.

Also, look at the difference between understanding the EC, and not getting it: George Wallace vs H Ross Perot. Perot got a far higher percentage of the so-called popular vote, but didn’t carry a single state. He was second in two. Had he concentrated on carrying those and building a bloc of states from there, he could have thrown the election into the House, and had a hell of a lot more influence than he had.

This is precisely what Wallace was after. His five states– which went mostly for Goldwater, and were FDR’s best– threatened to deprive the top candidate of an EC majority. Nixon was able to cobble one together just barely, but it scared the bejezus out of the establishment.

Incidentally, Trump is doing far better in the primary states than in the caucuses. Much of that is the fact that it’s easier to navigate ten minutes any time of day rather than carve two hours out of an evening, so he pulls in the less-determined voter. That’s causation.

But how much of it is synchronicity? Do the states which prefer to hold caucuses think differently in general than do the states running primaries?

Also, trade and immigration are complementary issues. Michigan and Ohio are not being inundated with immigrants (other than Dearborn, Columbus, and a few other outliers), for the very reason trade issues are important– there are no jobs for the immigrants to chase.

Trade can be a boon for the coasts and border towns, but they’re the ones swamped with immigrants. So Trump has a choice of trump cards to lay down.

Neither plays that well in the agricultural (i.e., pro-trade) Upper Midwest. But highlighting the scandalous refugee industry might be a third ace to play. It doesn’t do America or the genuine refugees (nor their homelands) any good at all. It’s dishonest, and the fair-play plainsmen can be turned against it with a little effort.

Since you take so seriously general election polls done this long before the election, could you tell us how you enjoyed the Mondale and Dukakis presidencies?

Demographically and politically, the 80s were a different world. The electorate was much whiter, and whites were more of a swing vote than they are now, so much bigger polling swings were possible. Also, even when Reagan and Bush were behind on the "who would you vote for" question (actually Reagan always led Mondale, but he was behind Carter until the fall), they never had the fantastically bad approval numbers that Trump does. Trump would be the most unpopular candidate that either major party has nominated in decades, and maybe ever.

In the last 20 years, there are no examples of a presidential candidate coming back to win from a more than 6-point polling deficit in April, and very few if any examples of a Senate candidate doing so either. Is it completely impossible that Trump could do it? Maybe not, but again, what exactly is the big payoff that nationalists/alt-right would get with President Trump that makes such a longshot gamble worth it, given the huge downside risk? At best, he'd be only slightly better on immigration than Cruz would, and arguably he'd be worse (since Cruz has pledged no legalization of illegals, and Trump has repeatedly promised an amnesty of unspecified size).

Trump would be the most unpopular candidate that either major party has nominated in decades, and maybe ever.

But he’d be running against one of the most unpopular– and unnatural– positions held by any politician in US history– that we need to import a hundred million low-wage foreigners to do jobs Americans don’t want to do. Oh, and tax ourselves to subsidize these foreigners. And compete with them for increasingly scarce housing.

I have no idea if Trump will push this issue. But if he does, you have to explain to us how the almost equally unpopular HRC will win your predicted landslide when saddled with this albatross.

Trump is unpopular, but his stances are not. Can Hillary say the same?

I've suggested this solution to the Trump demographic puzzle, but have not had time to crunch the data yet:

his appeal comes down to two things. Places where manufacturing industry is collapsing/collapsed, and places where working class whites have regular contact with working class folk of other races.

Minnesota, Utah? Not industrial heartland, and very little ethnic diversity outside of the big cities.

Trump's big pull is that working class whites feel like they have been abandoned, left behind, or despised by their leaders. If politics is a patronage game, they've been left without a patron. Trump intends to end that. This message will have most salience in the places where that really have been left behind economically (Michigan et. al.), or places where WCW must deal with the daily hardships that come with trying to live in balkanized multi-racial/cultural communities (Mississippi, Florida, et. al)

Places where manufacturing industry is collapsing/collapsed, and places where working class whites have regular contact with working class folk of other races.

This is a standard and pretty accurate explanation, but this doesn’t explain:

* New England – Vermont, New Hampshire (both lily-white and quite well off, solidly for Trump especially the latter.
* Massachusetts (almost 50%!) and in all likelihood, Connecticut – Some of the very wealthiest places in the US, and quite homogenous to boot.
* Oregon – According to that Cohn map, Trump is bright red around SJW homeland Portlandia. But also heavily White.

[...] On some occasions, Patrick’s favorite buzzword came with a gigantic price tag, like the billion dollars in subsidies and tax breaks that the governor authorized in 2008 to encourage pharmaceutical and biotech companies to do business in Massachusetts. On still other occasions, favoring inno has meant bulldozing the people in its path — for instance, the taxi drivers whose livelihoods are being usurped by ridesharing apps like Uber. When these workers staged a variety of protests in the Boston area, Patrick intervened decisively on the side of the distant software company. Apparently convenience for the people who ride in taxis was more important than good pay for people who drive those taxis. It probably didn’t hurt that Uber had hired a former Patrick aide as a lobbyist, but the real point was, of course, innovation: Uber was the future, the taxi drivers were the past, and the path for Massachusetts was obvious.

A short while later, Patrick became something of an innovator himself. After his time as governor came to an end last year, he won a job as a managing director of Bain Capital, the private equity firm that was founded by his predecessor Mitt Romney — and that had been so powerfully denounced by Democrats during the 2012 election. Patrick spoke about the job like it was just another startup: “It was a happy and timely coincidence I was interested in building a business that Bain was also interested in building,” he told the Wall Street Journal. Romney reportedly phoned him with congratulations.

Entrepreneurs First

At a 2014 celebration of Governor Patrick’s innovation leadership, Google’s Eric Schmidt announced that “if you want to solve the economic problems of the U.S., create more entrepreneurs.” That sort of sums up the ideology in this corporate commonwealth: Entrepreneurs first. But how has such a doctrine become holy writ in a party dedicated to the welfare of the common man? And how has all this come to pass in the liberal state of Massachusetts?

The answer is that I’ve got the wrong liberalism. The kind of liberalism that has dominated Massachusetts for the last few decades isn’t the stuff of Franklin Roosevelt or the United Auto Workers; it’s the Route 128/suburban-professionals variety. (Senator Elizabeth Warren is the great exception to this rule.) Professional-class liberals aren’t really alarmed by oversized rewards for society’s winners. On the contrary, this seems natural to them — because they are society’s winners. The liberalism of professionals just does not extend to matters of inequality; this is the area where soft hearts abruptly turn hard. [...]

"Places where manufacturing industry is collapsing/collapsed, and places where working class whites have regular contact with working class folk of other races."

This is a standard and pretty accurate explanation, but this doesn’t explain:

* New England – Vermont, New Hampshire (both lily-white and quite well off, solidly for Trump especially the latter.
* Massachusetts (almost 50%!) and in all likelihood, Connecticut – Some of the very wealthiest places in the US, and quite homogenous to boot.

New England is not solidly for Trump. Republicans have been reduced to an inconsequential minority in most of New England. Trump getting nearly 50% of the Republican primary vote in Massachusetts, where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3:1, doesn't mean this state supports Trump. That is wishful thinking. Likewise Vermont, where Trump beat Kasich 33% to 30% (Rubio got 19%) with 19,998 votes - compared to 115,863 for Bernie and 18,3335 for Hillary. You think in the general election more than 1/10 of Bernie's Vermont votes would go to Trump?

I live in the county of Ayrshire, where (contrary to what you keep saying) most of the Ulster Scots came from . See this map. South west Scotland is actually quite similar to East Anglia inasmuch as it has repeatedly been the origin of often successful insurgencies and religious movements from the Freemasons (Mother Lodge), Robert the Bruce at Turnberry Castle (near where Trump has invested BTW) to the Covananters’ Sanquhar Declaration.

In the twentieth century, the Covenanters were appropriated as forerunners of the working-class struggle for socialism and equality […] leaders could justifiably point to the early class consciousness of the Covenanters, to their hatred of landowners and aristocrats and their search for a collective society based on equality and mutual support.

It is also, remarkably in view of its sparse pop, the seat of a concentration of accomplishment according to this map. So lets have no more nonsense about the Ulster Scots being from the Borders, eh? By the way I live in the Scottish Kilmarnock, not the one in Virginia.

Anyway, it seems to me that unless they are robots the people in areas will exercise ecological rationality that overbears ancestral propensities the wealth of the population is an important factor. Now the Ulster Scots were from land where the valleys were boggy. The Germans often knew bette. It seems to me that midwest farmers are relatively wealthy. The Scandinavian and Germans disproportionately benefitted from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts. You cannot really say those communities would be voting the same if they were concentrated in barren mountains and rustbelts.

Places where manufacturing industry is collapsing/collapsed, and places where working class whites have regular contact with working class folk of other races.

This is a standard and pretty accurate explanation, but this doesn't explain:

* New England - Vermont, New Hampshire (both lily-white and quite well off, solidly for Trump especially the latter.
* Massachusetts (almost 50%!) and in all likelihood, Connecticut - Some of the very wealthiest places in the US, and quite homogenous to boot.
* Oregon - According to that Cohn map, Trump is bright red around SJW homeland Portlandia. But also heavily White.

[...] On some occasions, Patrick’s favorite buzzword came with a gigantic price tag, like the billion dollars in subsidies and tax breaks that the governor authorized in 2008 to encourage pharmaceutical and biotech companies to do business in Massachusetts. On still other occasions, favoring inno has meant bulldozing the people in its path — for instance, the taxi drivers whose livelihoods are being usurped by ridesharing apps like Uber. When these workers staged a variety of protests in the Boston area, Patrick intervened decisively on the side of the distant software company. Apparently convenience for the people who ride in taxis was more important than good pay for people who drive those taxis. It probably didn’t hurt that Uber had hired a former Patrick aide as a lobbyist, but the real point was, of course, innovation: Uber was the future, the taxi drivers were the past, and the path for Massachusetts was obvious.

A short while later, Patrick became something of an innovator himself. After his time as governor came to an end last year, he won a job as a managing director of Bain Capital, the private equity firm that was founded by his predecessor Mitt Romney — and that had been so powerfully denounced by Democrats during the 2012 election. Patrick spoke about the job like it was just another startup: “It was a happy and timely coincidence I was interested in building a business that Bain was also interested in building,” he told the Wall Street Journal. Romney reportedly phoned him with congratulations.

Entrepreneurs First

At a 2014 celebration of Governor Patrick’s innovation leadership, Google’s Eric Schmidt announced that “if you want to solve the economic problems of the U.S., create more entrepreneurs.” That sort of sums up the ideology in this corporate commonwealth: Entrepreneurs first. But how has such a doctrine become holy writ in a party dedicated to the welfare of the common man? And how has all this come to pass in the liberal state of Massachusetts?

The answer is that I’ve got the wrong liberalism. The kind of liberalism that has dominated Massachusetts for the last few decades isn’t the stuff of Franklin Roosevelt or the United Auto Workers; it’s the Route 128/suburban-professionals variety. (Senator Elizabeth Warren is the great exception to this rule.) Professional-class liberals aren’t really alarmed by oversized rewards for society’s winners. On the contrary, this seems natural to them — because they are society’s winners. The liberalism of professionals just does not extend to matters of inequality; this is the area where soft hearts abruptly turn hard. [...]

It doesn't matter what policies Trump espouses, he is going to lose in a landslide because he is so horrifically unpopular on a personal level. And not just with women: He even has a 51% negative rating with white men.

Support for a fence on the Mexican border has collapsed down to 38%, because Trump's radioactivity contaminates the policies he is associated with.

The theory that Trump might win by energizing the white working class and scrambling the map wasn't completely implausible, when he was only losing to Hillary! by three or four points in the polling averages. But when he's losing to her by an average of eleven points, it's outright delusional.

A Trump nomination would be an absolute disaster for nationalists and the alt-right. His epic defeat will be wrongly blamed on his pro-borders pronouncements, and the GOP establishment will claim vindication. If the GOP Senate and House go down with him, which is quite possible, Democrats will ram through an immigration bill to the left of the Gang of Eight. Even if the GOP holds the House, there's a good chance that Speaker Ryan will strike some sort of amnesty deal with the Democratic Senate and White House.

And even if by some miracle Trump overcomes a double-digit polling deficit and wins the White House. it's unlikely he'll be much better on immigration than Cruz would have (in fact, having backed off his past support for H1-B increases, Cruz actually has a slightly better NumbersUSA grade than Trump). Trump has never explicitly promised to cut overall legal immigration levels. He has promised some form of touchback amnesty for an unspecified number of "good" illegals. He's defended "guest worker" programs in the debates using the "jobs Americans won't do" canard. So what exactly is it about Trump that makes him so much better than Cruz, it's worth it for immigration hawks to gamble on him, depite the fact that Cruz polls eight points better against Hillary!? Sure, Cruz would probably lose too, but by a Romney-esqe rather than Mondale-esqe margin, making it more likely that the GOP holds Congress.

Imagine Trump losing Utah… but winning New York. Sounds completely impossible, but all sorts of impossible things have been Happening in this campaign, so really – why not?

Because one way in which this campaign hasn't been unusual, is that the polls have basically been right. The most recent poll, from Quinnipiac (taken before the abortion debacle), shows Hillary! beating Trump in NY by 20 points. That's only four points better than Cruz, despite it being his home state and Cruz having denigrated "NY values."

Trump has been hurt by the 24/7 attacks. And the attacks have been coming largely from he GOP/conservative establishment and conservative media. If Trump doesn’t win the nomination, I’m voting Democrat and I will have some serious schadenfreude every day liberal totalitarianism takes away the economic future and religious freedom and cultural identity of middle America. I’m going to champion unfettered immigration and refugee placement in Cruz country.

It doesn't matter what policies Trump espouses, he is going to lose in a landslide because he is so horrifically unpopular on a personal level. And not just with women: He even has a 51% negative rating with white men.

Support for a fence on the Mexican border has collapsed down to 38%, because Trump's radioactivity contaminates the policies he is associated with.

The theory that Trump might win by energizing the white working class and scrambling the map wasn't completely implausible, when he was only losing to Hillary! by three or four points in the polling averages. But when he's losing to her by an average of eleven points, it's outright delusional.

A Trump nomination would be an absolute disaster for nationalists and the alt-right. His epic defeat will be wrongly blamed on his pro-borders pronouncements, and the GOP establishment will claim vindication. If the GOP Senate and House go down with him, which is quite possible, Democrats will ram through an immigration bill to the left of the Gang of Eight. Even if the GOP holds the House, there's a good chance that Speaker Ryan will strike some sort of amnesty deal with the Democratic Senate and White House.

And even if by some miracle Trump overcomes a double-digit polling deficit and wins the White House. it's unlikely he'll be much better on immigration than Cruz would have (in fact, having backed off his past support for H1-B increases, Cruz actually has a slightly better NumbersUSA grade than Trump). Trump has never explicitly promised to cut overall legal immigration levels. He has promised some form of touchback amnesty for an unspecified number of "good" illegals. He's defended "guest worker" programs in the debates using the "jobs Americans won't do" canard. So what exactly is it about Trump that makes him so much better than Cruz, it's worth it for immigration hawks to gamble on him, depite the fact that Cruz polls eight points better against Hillary!? Sure, Cruz would probably lose too, but by a Romney-esqe rather than Mondale-esqe margin, making it more likely that the GOP holds Congress.

Imagine Trump losing Utah… but winning New York. Sounds completely impossible, but all sorts of impossible things have been Happening in this campaign, so really – why not?

Because one way in which this campaign hasn't been unusual, is that the polls have basically been right. The most recent poll, from Quinnipiac (taken before the abortion debacle), shows Hillary! beating Trump in NY by 20 points. That's only four points better than Cruz, despite it being his home state and Cruz having denigrated "NY values."

Where will they come from, this dream candidate Trump’s failure would be ruining the future prospects for? Trump is the best of what there actually is, and he was a long time building up to this. Anyone else promising a wall would have a much tougher job to get this close to being elected . He is not of the religious right, and not locked into Wall Street and existing foreign policies. He is going to have to articulate the interests of manufacturing and Israel and if he indicates willingness to give some help on those issues has a reasonable chance of getting important Republican party sectors on his side.

The animus against Palin was partly because she is a woman. Polls certainly do not overstate Trump’s support but I wonder about Clinton’s. I suspect Trump supporters may be much more likely to refuse to tell pollsters or mislead as to their true intentions. In the worst case, I can’t see how Trump running and failing would leave serious immigration control proposals any worse off than they were before.

One point that isn't made often enough this election cycle is the Enthusiasm Gap.

Almost nobody is excited about Hillary, in fact, one of the reasons she is not being automatically coronated is because of the Youth Enthusiasm for Bernie.

On the Republican side, it would be Kasich or Jeb! right now if not for the enthusiasm of Trump voters.

In a contest of enthusiasm between Trump and Hillary, the former clearly has the edge.

It's not just who prefers whom, but who actually gets their tuchas in the polling booth in November.

Many "yuck, Trump" and "Hillary, I guess" people just won't be arsed to do it, and that's how Trump can win. It's how Obama won twice: McCain and especially Romney were weak and unappealing candidates; the white working class/suburban vote stayed home.

Other factors: A weakening economy, and a terror attack - even in Europe - could turn the tide.

Trump’s base of support consists of Southern whites and Northern white ethnics. In other words, traditional Democrats who were part of FDR’s primary support base and made up the New Deal coalition which dominated Democratic and national politics until the 60s and 70s, when Southern whites switched over to the GOP. Northern white ethnics have been more gradually moving into the GOP over the past 30, 40 years, in many cases remaining nominal Democrats while not voting at all or voting for Republicans, like the hard hats, Reagan Democrats, and many of the voters today who are voting for the first time or switching to the GOP to vote for Trump and raising the turnout in these primaries.

Whereas traditional Republicans – Northern and Midwestern/Western WASPs – tend to have less support for Trump.

Since you take so seriously general election polls done this long before the election, could you tell us how you enjoyed the Mondale and Dukakis presidencies?

Demographically and politically, the 80s were a different world. The electorate was much whiter, and whites were more of a swing vote than they are now, so much bigger polling swings were possible. Also, even when Reagan and Bush were behind on the "who would you vote for" question (actually Reagan always led Mondale, but he was behind Carter until the fall), they never had the fantastically bad approval numbers that Trump does. Trump would be the most unpopular candidate that either major party has nominated in decades, and maybe ever.

In the last 20 years, there are no examples of a presidential candidate coming back to win from a more than 6-point polling deficit in April, and very few if any examples of a Senate candidate doing so either. Is it completely impossible that Trump could do it? Maybe not, but again, what exactly is the big payoff that nationalists/alt-right would get with President Trump that makes such a longshot gamble worth it, given the huge downside risk? At best, he'd be only slightly better on immigration than Cruz would, and arguably he'd be worse (since Cruz has pledged no legalization of illegals, and Trump has repeatedly promised an amnesty of unspecified size).

Without Donald Trump in the race, we’d have Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio arguing over whether 6 months or 2 years was the appropriate period for a path to citizenship. Trump was the first candidate to break out of the mold and actually advocate deportation of illegals. He, and no one else, shifted the Overton Window and that’s why the cuckservatives hate him with such a passion.

Thank God the AltRight has Donald Trump in the race, for no sane man would tolerate it.

Where will they come from, this dream candidate Trump's failure would be ruining the future prospects for? Trump is the best of what there actually is, and he was a long time building up to this. Anyone else promising a wall would have a much tougher job to get this close to being elected . He is not of the religious right, and not locked into Wall Street and existing foreign policies. He is going to have to articulate the interests of manufacturing and Israel and if he indicates willingness to give some help on those issues has a reasonable chance of getting important Republican party sectors on his side.

The animus against Palin was partly because she is a woman. Polls certainly do not overstate Trump's support but I wonder about Clinton's. I suspect Trump supporters may be much more likely to refuse to tell pollsters or mislead as to their true intentions. In the worst case, I can't see how Trump running and failing would leave serious immigration control proposals any worse off than they were before.

Palin was served up severely compared to Dan Quayle. I don't think a man with Palin's resume and beliefs would have got the same derision. Women are just more vulnerable when being judged on supposedly objective criteria.

Obama, who everyone thought the US was not ready for as pres, defeated Clinton who had seemed unstoppable.

For a while she was looking vulnerable to Bernie, who should not have been competitive. While she would be slightly younger than Reagan was when he became pres, Hillary is going to be a 69 year old, who suffered a serious concussion and blood clot not that long ago.

It’s interesting to see how strongly the GOP establishment is swinging behind Cruz even though his immigration policies are now on a par with Trump. I suspect it comes down to trade. The GOP has made a tactical retreat on immigration but refuses to budge on trade, and they are willing to support Cruz who is positioning himself as the hybrid candidate who is populist on immigration but elitist on trade.

Unfortunately, being elitist on trade probably isn’t going to cut it with the working class swing voters, who are strongly supporting Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders. If Cruz is nominated he could sweep the resource and farming states in a landslide but still lose the election because he fails to win any of the marginal states in other parts of the country. Another problem is that Cruz has no charisma, and will simply be dismissed as an aloof establishment nerd by many working class whites.

Mind you the Democrats have problems as well. Unlike the Republicans, they can’t really afford to make a tactical retreat on any aspect of free trade or open borders, even though both are increasingly unpopular with a lot of undecided voters.

It's important to be mindful of what the American Nations actually represent: regional genetic differences across the continent.

As with anything that's inherently fuzzy, there are many ways of group them, especially depending on what variables you're looking at. Woodard's nations are the superior model because he actually takes settlement patterns into account. His nations follow the settlement of the old stock Americans. Some of the nations will be more internally consistent than others because those areas have received little subsequent immigration (the nations of the South) or exist specifically because of assortative migration (the Left Coast). But the nations of the Old North (Yankeedom and the Midlands) have received heavy immigration and that has changed their character considerably – Italians and Celts in the eastern parts and Germanics in the western parts. This is why you often see an east-west split. And then there is "boiling off" that has occurred in many areas.

The standard American Nations pattern is evident in the Democratic primaries. And of course the general election will revert to the usual pattern.

Might the distinction between the two groupings be summarized (very roughly) this way: the Woodward nations reflect genes and the Cohn nations reflect culture? Then, the better fit of the Cohn map suggests that culture doesn’t reduce to genetics.

Might the distinction between the two groupings be summarized (very roughly) this way: the Woodward nations reflect genes and the Cohn nations reflect culture? Then, the better fit of the Cohn map suggests that culture doesn't reduce to genetics.

“The two biggest exceptions – that prove the rule – are Texas and Ohio…”

Exceptions don’t prove rules, they disprove them. This is a common misconception in the language that arises from the fact that an older meaning of ‘prove’ meant something along the lines of ‘test’, so if we apply that meaning, this saying makes more sense: the exception that tests the rule.

I've suggested this solution to the Trump demographic puzzle, but have not had time to crunch the data yet:

his appeal comes down to two things. Places where manufacturing industry is collapsing/collapsed, and places where working class whites have regular contact with working class folk of other races.

Minnesota, Utah? Not industrial heartland, and very little ethnic diversity outside of the big cities.

Trump's big pull is that working class whites feel like they have been abandoned, left behind, or despised by their leaders. If politics is a patronage game, they've been left without a patron. Trump intends to end that. This message will have most salience in the places where that really have been left behind economically (Michigan et. al.), or places where WCW must deal with the daily hardships that come with trying to live in balkanized multi-racial/cultural communities (Mississippi, Florida, et. al)

“his appeal comes down to two things. Places where manufacturing industry is collapsing/collapsed, and places where working class whites have regular contact with working class folk of other races. ”

I think you’re on to something, but by this logic, New Jersey should have higher support than Massachusetts. Both have manufacturing/union jobs in decline, but NJ definitely has more minorities, especially of the NAM variety that give everyone the headaches that cause them to question diversity.

It doesn't matter what policies Trump espouses, he is going to lose in a landslide because he is so horrifically unpopular on a personal level. And not just with women: He even has a 51% negative rating with white men.

Support for a fence on the Mexican border has collapsed down to 38%, because Trump's radioactivity contaminates the policies he is associated with.

The theory that Trump might win by energizing the white working class and scrambling the map wasn't completely implausible, when he was only losing to Hillary! by three or four points in the polling averages. But when he's losing to her by an average of eleven points, it's outright delusional.

A Trump nomination would be an absolute disaster for nationalists and the alt-right. His epic defeat will be wrongly blamed on his pro-borders pronouncements, and the GOP establishment will claim vindication. If the GOP Senate and House go down with him, which is quite possible, Democrats will ram through an immigration bill to the left of the Gang of Eight. Even if the GOP holds the House, there's a good chance that Speaker Ryan will strike some sort of amnesty deal with the Democratic Senate and White House.

And even if by some miracle Trump overcomes a double-digit polling deficit and wins the White House. it's unlikely he'll be much better on immigration than Cruz would have (in fact, having backed off his past support for H1-B increases, Cruz actually has a slightly better NumbersUSA grade than Trump). Trump has never explicitly promised to cut overall legal immigration levels. He has promised some form of touchback amnesty for an unspecified number of "good" illegals. He's defended "guest worker" programs in the debates using the "jobs Americans won't do" canard. So what exactly is it about Trump that makes him so much better than Cruz, it's worth it for immigration hawks to gamble on him, depite the fact that Cruz polls eight points better against Hillary!? Sure, Cruz would probably lose too, but by a Romney-esqe rather than Mondale-esqe margin, making it more likely that the GOP holds Congress.

Imagine Trump losing Utah… but winning New York. Sounds completely impossible, but all sorts of impossible things have been Happening in this campaign, so really – why not?

Because one way in which this campaign hasn't been unusual, is that the polls have basically been right. The most recent poll, from Quinnipiac (taken before the abortion debacle), shows Hillary! beating Trump in NY by 20 points. That's only four points better than Cruz, despite it being his home state and Cruz having denigrated "NY values."

White nationalists surely benefit from Trump’s candidacy. (The Daily Stormer can’t be wrong.) What would be awful for them would be a Trump presidency. It would make them look like idiots for having believed his promises despite the overwhelming evidence that he doesn’t even intend them for belief.

A lot of WNs are extremely cynical conspiracy theory types. I very much doubt that many of them think Trump is the answer to their prayers, just marginally better than the alternatives like Hillary. On sites like Alternative Right and Radix a lot of the WNs are opposed to democracy on elitist grounds and won't even lower themselves to vote with the masses.

The most enthusiastic Trump fans appear to be the working class populists who turn up at his rallies.

White nationalist have been shown to be unable to benefit from events, being completely helpless and totally ineffective. Trump doesn't need them, but he needs the neocons As a president elected to end the disastrous policy of intervention against Mickey Mouse powers that are no real danger to Israel (while the Arabs in the West Bank become ever more of a time bomb for the Jewish state) Trump would have a lot to bargain with. Things for Israel that the neocons have not even dared mention might be possible, if the eighth nation will give something on immigration.

It's important to be mindful of what the American Nations actually represent: regional genetic differences across the continent.

As with anything that's inherently fuzzy, there are many ways of group them, especially depending on what variables you're looking at. Woodard's nations are the superior model because he actually takes settlement patterns into account. His nations follow the settlement of the old stock Americans. Some of the nations will be more internally consistent than others because those areas have received little subsequent immigration (the nations of the South) or exist specifically because of assortative migration (the Left Coast). But the nations of the Old North (Yankeedom and the Midlands) have received heavy immigration and that has changed their character considerably – Italians and Celts in the eastern parts and Germanics in the western parts. This is why you often see an east-west split. And then there is "boiling off" that has occurred in many areas.

The standard American Nations pattern is evident in the Democratic primaries. And of course the general election will revert to the usual pattern.

Interesting. I have some background in linguistics, and Woodard’s map looks an awful lot like dialectological maps of North America, e.g. the so-called “Inland North” dialect grouping that covers “Yankeedom”, or “Greater Appalachia” corresponding to the “Inland South” dialect continuum (not to be confused with “Coastal South”). Your own point about the settlement of immigrants in the eastern parts of some, but not all, “nations” meshes with this quite well: we’d expect the incomers to assimilate linguistically, but not genetically. It’s interesting that quite possibly they have altered the local political landscape, even as they assimilated in other ways.

Garreau’s map may also have some good sociological basis, but it does not match the historical settlement patterns so well; the correspondence to linguistic isoglosses is also much weaker.

Interesting. I have some background in linguistics, and Woodard’s map looks an awful lot like dialectological maps of North America, e.g. the so-called “Inland North” dialect grouping that covers “Yankeedom”, or “Greater Appalachia” corresponding to the “Inland South” dialect continuum (not to be confused with “Coastal South”).

The issue here is that Iowa, Kansas, and Minnesota had caucuses, while Oklahoma had a closed primary. Missouri, Illinois, and Wisconsin have more open primaries. Trump does better with non-registered Republicans, so I think any clear demarcation of Trump support is difficult here.

In MI, Arkansas, and Ohio, Trump did better where unemployment was higher. This relationship did not work well for some other states, so take it with a grain of salt.

Interestingly, Clinton is popular where Stevenson and Smith were popular in the 1920s&1950s. Sanders is popular where Eisenhower and Hoover were popular.

“When polls show that Trump is slated to lose Utah as Republican nominee”

-Utah has been rock-solid Republican since the 1980s. There’s no reason for it to switch.

“or even manipulate arcane Electoral College rules from the 19th century to invalidate his Presidency should he win the popular vote.”

-Thurmond and Wallace tried that. Both failed.

“Sounds completely impossible, but all sorts of impossible things have been Happening in this campaign, so really – why not?”

-I just don’t see it happening. Clinton’s too popular in NY, Utah’s been solidly Republican for too long. The battle lines are too sharply drawn. Look at my map at

determining-the-redness-and-blueness-of-states-from-primary-results/

(Note: Tyler Cowen marked my blog as spam, so I can’t link to it directly. Google the phrase).

The GOP has a structural advantage here since, with one highly atypical early 19th century exception, the popular vote margin for a presidential candidate not already in office as President trying to succeed an incumbent of the same party always falls relative to the previous election. 1984 v. 1988. 1964 v. 1968. 1956 v. 1960. 1948 v. 1952. All had substantial support drops.

It doesn't matter what policies Trump espouses, he is going to lose in a landslide because he is so horrifically unpopular on a personal level. And not just with women: He even has a 51% negative rating with white men.

Support for a fence on the Mexican border has collapsed down to 38%, because Trump's radioactivity contaminates the policies he is associated with.

The theory that Trump might win by energizing the white working class and scrambling the map wasn't completely implausible, when he was only losing to Hillary! by three or four points in the polling averages. But when he's losing to her by an average of eleven points, it's outright delusional.

A Trump nomination would be an absolute disaster for nationalists and the alt-right. His epic defeat will be wrongly blamed on his pro-borders pronouncements, and the GOP establishment will claim vindication. If the GOP Senate and House go down with him, which is quite possible, Democrats will ram through an immigration bill to the left of the Gang of Eight. Even if the GOP holds the House, there's a good chance that Speaker Ryan will strike some sort of amnesty deal with the Democratic Senate and White House.

And even if by some miracle Trump overcomes a double-digit polling deficit and wins the White House. it's unlikely he'll be much better on immigration than Cruz would have (in fact, having backed off his past support for H1-B increases, Cruz actually has a slightly better NumbersUSA grade than Trump). Trump has never explicitly promised to cut overall legal immigration levels. He has promised some form of touchback amnesty for an unspecified number of "good" illegals. He's defended "guest worker" programs in the debates using the "jobs Americans won't do" canard. So what exactly is it about Trump that makes him so much better than Cruz, it's worth it for immigration hawks to gamble on him, depite the fact that Cruz polls eight points better against Hillary!? Sure, Cruz would probably lose too, but by a Romney-esqe rather than Mondale-esqe margin, making it more likely that the GOP holds Congress.

Imagine Trump losing Utah… but winning New York. Sounds completely impossible, but all sorts of impossible things have been Happening in this campaign, so really – why not?

Because one way in which this campaign hasn't been unusual, is that the polls have basically been right. The most recent poll, from Quinnipiac (taken before the abortion debacle), shows Hillary! beating Trump in NY by 20 points. That's only four points better than Cruz, despite it being his home state and Cruz having denigrated "NY values."

Who do all those people that are registering as Republicans to vote for Trump vote for when Trump is no longer the candidate? Do you seriously think they will vote for Cruz? If anything, they will vote against the Republicans for their dirty tricks against Trump.

There is some wishful thinking here. Victory in the Republican primary in states where Republicans dominate, such as Dixie, is meaningful. Victory in the Republican primaries in states where Republicans are a small minority is not. New England does not support Trump. New England Republican primary voters – a small percentage of New Englanders – support Trump. In Massachusetts, for example, Clinton and Sanders each about had as many votes as all the Republicans combined. New England is not Trump country because Trump won the Republican primary there. Likewise, with the West Coast.

The leaves Dixie and the Foundry. Dixie is solidly Republican, and Trump dominated the contests there. Trump is clearly Dixie’s man – no argument. The Foundry is more mixed. Parts of it – western Michigan with its prosperous Dutch farmers who voted for Cruz, and rural central Ohio – are Breadbasket. Parts of it resemble New England (NE Ohio). Kasich not only easily won Ohio, he is now essentially tied with Trump in PA (down 3%, within the margin of error). This may be Trump country, but certainly not solidly so. And Republicans don’t even dominate these states.

"New England is not Trump country because Trump won the Republican primary there."

-The sole exception is New Hampshire. Which voted for Bush once in 2000. Again, see my map at

determining-the-redness-and-blueness-of-states-from-primary-results/(Google it).Pennsylvania ended up being the most pro-Romney non-FL/VA/NH swing state needed for the GOP candidate to to win the general. Trump should definitely make a go for it. New Hampshire is the whitest state in the entire country.

Who do all those people that are registering as Republicans to vote for Trump vote for when Trump is no longer the candidate? Do you seriously think they will vote for Cruz? If anything, they will vote against the Republicans for their dirty tricks against Trump.

Many of them may stay home; I suspect not many will vote against the Republican (i.e., for Hillary).

There is some wishful thinking here. Victory in the Republican primary in states where Republicans dominate, such as Dixie, is meaningful. Victory in the Republican primaries in states where Republicans are a small minority is not. New England does not support Trump. New England Republican primary voters - a small percentage of New Englanders - support Trump. In Massachusetts, for example, Clinton and Sanders each about had as many votes as all the Republicans combined. New England is not Trump country because Trump won the Republican primary there. Likewise, with the West Coast.

The leaves Dixie and the Foundry. Dixie is solidly Republican, and Trump dominated the contests there. Trump is clearly Dixie's man - no argument. The Foundry is more mixed. Parts of it - western Michigan with its prosperous Dutch farmers who voted for Cruz, and rural central Ohio - are Breadbasket. Parts of it resemble New England (NE Ohio). Kasich not only easily won Ohio, he is now essentially tied with Trump in PA (down 3%, within the margin of error). This may be Trump country, but certainly not solidly so. And Republicans don't even dominate these states.

“New England is not Trump country because Trump won the Republican primary there.”

-The sole exception is New Hampshire. Which voted for Bush once in 2000. Again, see my map at

determining-the-redness-and-blueness-of-states-from-primary-results/
(Google it).
Pennsylvania ended up being the most pro-Romney non-FL/VA/NH swing state needed for the GOP candidate to to win the general. Trump should definitely make a go for it. New Hampshire is the whitest state in the entire country.

“New England is not Trump country because Trump won the Republican primary there.”

-The sole exception is New Hampshire. Which voted for Bush once in 2000.

Correct. But it's sparsely populated and overall New England remains solidly Democratic and thus not at all "clearly supporting" Trump in the general election. Trump has Dixie and, arguably, the Foundry.

Your map is very interesting and useful. However when taking into account general election predictions one ought to also consider what independent voters - the kind who are less likely to participate in primaries - would want. Normally one might assume these could break for both parties more or less evenly; in that case, your map would be rather predictive. Trump, however, seems to poll poorly among independents, with low favorability ratings among them. This probably explains his poor showing in general election polls (in Ohio he loses to Clinton by 6 in the latest general election poll, despite getting more votes in the primaries than she did).

Places where manufacturing industry is collapsing/collapsed, and places where working class whites have regular contact with working class folk of other races.

This is a standard and pretty accurate explanation, but this doesn't explain:

* New England - Vermont, New Hampshire (both lily-white and quite well off, solidly for Trump especially the latter.
* Massachusetts (almost 50%!) and in all likelihood, Connecticut - Some of the very wealthiest places in the US, and quite homogenous to boot.
* Oregon - According to that Cohn map, Trump is bright red around SJW homeland Portlandia. But also heavily White.

“Places where manufacturing industry is collapsing/collapsed, and places where working class whites have regular contact with working class folk of other races.”

This is a standard and pretty accurate explanation, but this doesn’t explain:

* New England – Vermont, New Hampshire (both lily-white and quite well off, solidly for Trump especially the latter.
* Massachusetts (almost 50%!) and in all likelihood, Connecticut – Some of the very wealthiest places in the US, and quite homogenous to boot.

New England is not solidly for Trump. Republicans have been reduced to an inconsequential minority in most of New England. Trump getting nearly 50% of the Republican primary vote in Massachusetts, where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3:1, doesn’t mean this state supports Trump. That is wishful thinking. Likewise Vermont, where Trump beat Kasich 33% to 30% (Rubio got 19%) with 19,998 votes – compared to 115,863 for Bernie and 18,3335 for Hillary. You think in the general election more than 1/10 of Bernie’s Vermont votes would go to Trump?

White nationalists surely benefit from Trump's candidacy. (The Daily Stormer can't be wrong.) What would be awful for them would be a Trump presidency. It would make them look like idiots for having believed his promises despite the overwhelming evidence that he doesn't even intend them for belief.

A lot of WNs are extremely cynical conspiracy theory types. I very much doubt that many of them think Trump is the answer to their prayers, just marginally better than the alternatives like Hillary. On sites like Alternative Right and Radix a lot of the WNs are opposed to democracy on elitist grounds and won’t even lower themselves to vote with the masses.

The most enthusiastic Trump fans appear to be the working class populists who turn up at his rallies.

"New England is not Trump country because Trump won the Republican primary there."

-The sole exception is New Hampshire. Which voted for Bush once in 2000. Again, see my map at

determining-the-redness-and-blueness-of-states-from-primary-results/(Google it).Pennsylvania ended up being the most pro-Romney non-FL/VA/NH swing state needed for the GOP candidate to to win the general. Trump should definitely make a go for it. New Hampshire is the whitest state in the entire country.

BTW, Trump got more votes than Clinton in Ohio.

“New England is not Trump country because Trump won the Republican primary there.”

-The sole exception is New Hampshire. Which voted for Bush once in 2000.

Correct. But it’s sparsely populated and overall New England remains solidly Democratic and thus not at all “clearly supporting” Trump in the general election. Trump has Dixie and, arguably, the Foundry.

Your map is very interesting and useful. However when taking into account general election predictions one ought to also consider what independent voters – the kind who are less likely to participate in primaries – would want. Normally one might assume these could break for both parties more or less evenly; in that case, your map would be rather predictive. Trump, however, seems to poll poorly among independents, with low favorability ratings among them. This probably explains his poor showing in general election polls (in Ohio he loses to Clinton by 6 in the latest general election poll, despite getting more votes in the primaries than she did).

The fact that Clinton and Cruz do better among registered partisans voting in their respective primaries, while Trump and Sanders do better among independents voting in their respective primaries (the effect is especially clear for Trump, cf., Missouri v. Oklahoma) suggests Trump's more popular among independents than among registered Republicans. But it's uncertain whether he's more popular among independents than Hillary Clinton is. Sanders might be more popular than Trump among independents.

It's interesting to see how strongly the GOP establishment is swinging behind Cruz even though his immigration policies are now on a par with Trump. I suspect it comes down to trade. The GOP has made a tactical retreat on immigration but refuses to budge on trade, and they are willing to support Cruz who is positioning himself as the hybrid candidate who is populist on immigration but elitist on trade.

Unfortunately, being elitist on trade probably isn't going to cut it with the working class swing voters, who are strongly supporting Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders. If Cruz is nominated he could sweep the resource and farming states in a landslide but still lose the election because he fails to win any of the marginal states in other parts of the country. Another problem is that Cruz has no charisma, and will simply be dismissed as an aloof establishment nerd by many working class whites.

Mind you the Democrats have problems as well. Unlike the Republicans, they can't really afford to make a tactical retreat on any aspect of free trade or open borders, even though both are increasingly unpopular with a lot of undecided voters.

Even more important, they know that Cruz’s occasional and recent backing for Trumpian themes on foreign policy is pure opportunism, but they fear they really cannot trust Trump to toe the neocon line.

Trump appeals to southern Whites, who are heavily Scots-Irish, to Italian-Americans and to Irish-Americans. Unfortunately his personality type clashes with those of German- and Scandinavian-Americans in the Midwest. The Yankee (i.e. ancestrally English) element in New England and the Midwest won’t like him either. Those people value humility and egalitarianism. He’s a braggart who flaunts his wealth.

His father was German, his mom was from the Outer Hebrides, which are, I guess, part Celtic and part Scandinavian genetically. So his personality is atypical for someone of his background. I read an article about his college years, with interviews with his old classmates, which made it clear that his personality is not an act. He was always like that.

Will the support of Irish- and Italian-Americans be enough for him to win more than one or two northeastern states? I don’t know.

His ethnicity is the most common denominator in American history.A mutt just like all the rest of US.
The question is will the American people let the enemy,Zion,pull the wool over their eyes once again.

So far, I've seen no evidence of a German disadvantage for Trump (on a county level). Scandinavian disadvantage? Who knows? Minnesota had caucuses, in which Trump does worse. He does worse than Cruz among Dutch-Americans. Wisconsin will have an open primary, which strongly favors Trump.

"The Yankee (i.e. ancestrally English) element in New England and the Midwest won’t like him either."

-He won Vermont (can't get more English than that!) in the primaries, didn't he? Vermont is very anti-Cruz.

Cruz’s support is all crazy heretical moonie loonies.WTF?Furriners don’t get it.
Saying that if abortion is illegal that there will be penalties is about the most logical statement in American history.Ill chosen?Only to the morons.
Zionist divide and conquer:Will it work its black magic on America again?

Trump appeals to southern Whites, who are heavily Scots-Irish, to Italian-Americans and to Irish-Americans. Unfortunately his personality type clashes with those of German- and Scandinavian-Americans in the Midwest. The Yankee (i.e. ancestrally English) element in New England and the Midwest won't like him either. Those people value humility and egalitarianism. He's a braggart who flaunts his wealth.

His father was German, his mom was from the Outer Hebrides, which are, I guess, part Celtic and part Scandinavian genetically. So his personality is atypical for someone of his background. I read an article about his college years, with interviews with his old classmates, which made it clear that his personality is not an act. He was always like that.

Will the support of Irish- and Italian-Americans be enough for him to win more than one or two northeastern states? I don't know.

His ethnicity is the most common denominator in American history.A mutt just like all the rest of US.
The question is will the American people let the enemy,Zion,pull the wool over their eyes once again.

“New England is not Trump country because Trump won the Republican primary there.”

-The sole exception is New Hampshire. Which voted for Bush once in 2000.

Correct. But it's sparsely populated and overall New England remains solidly Democratic and thus not at all "clearly supporting" Trump in the general election. Trump has Dixie and, arguably, the Foundry.

Your map is very interesting and useful. However when taking into account general election predictions one ought to also consider what independent voters - the kind who are less likely to participate in primaries - would want. Normally one might assume these could break for both parties more or less evenly; in that case, your map would be rather predictive. Trump, however, seems to poll poorly among independents, with low favorability ratings among them. This probably explains his poor showing in general election polls (in Ohio he loses to Clinton by 6 in the latest general election poll, despite getting more votes in the primaries than she did).

The fact that Clinton and Cruz do better among registered partisans voting in their respective primaries, while Trump and Sanders do better among independents voting in their respective primaries (the effect is especially clear for Trump, cf., Missouri v. Oklahoma) suggests Trump’s more popular among independents than among registered Republicans. But it’s uncertain whether he’s more popular among independents than Hillary Clinton is. Sanders might be more popular than Trump among independents.

Trump’s more popular among independents than among registered Republicans.

Sure, but that doesn't mean he is more popular among independents compared to other Republican candidates. The independent voters who like Trump already voted for him in the primaries. The fact that Trump does so poorly in general election polls suggests that he is quite unpopular among independent voters who didn't vote in the primaries but who will vote in the general election. Despite attracting many independents into the Republican primaries, Trump still has a ceiling of upper 30s/lower 40s in the Republican primaries, which likely translates into a loss in the general election, against a very weak Democratic candidate.

The Trump phenomenon is basically an "own goal" by the Republicans who had neglected the needs of working class white voters.

White nationalists surely benefit from Trump's candidacy. (The Daily Stormer can't be wrong.) What would be awful for them would be a Trump presidency. It would make them look like idiots for having believed his promises despite the overwhelming evidence that he doesn't even intend them for belief.

White nationalist have been shown to be unable to benefit from events, being completely helpless and totally ineffective. Trump doesn’t need them, but he needs the neocons As a president elected to end the disastrous policy of intervention against Mickey Mouse powers that are no real danger to Israel (while the Arabs in the West Bank become ever more of a time bomb for the Jewish state) Trump would have a lot to bargain with. Things for Israel that the neocons have not even dared mention might be possible, if the eighth nation will give something on immigration.

Trump appeals to southern Whites, who are heavily Scots-Irish, to Italian-Americans and to Irish-Americans. Unfortunately his personality type clashes with those of German- and Scandinavian-Americans in the Midwest. The Yankee (i.e. ancestrally English) element in New England and the Midwest won't like him either. Those people value humility and egalitarianism. He's a braggart who flaunts his wealth.

His father was German, his mom was from the Outer Hebrides, which are, I guess, part Celtic and part Scandinavian genetically. So his personality is atypical for someone of his background. I read an article about his college years, with interviews with his old classmates, which made it clear that his personality is not an act. He was always like that.

Will the support of Irish- and Italian-Americans be enough for him to win more than one or two northeastern states? I don't know.

So far, I’ve seen no evidence of a German disadvantage for Trump (on a county level). Scandinavian disadvantage? Who knows? Minnesota had caucuses, in which Trump does worse. He does worse than Cruz among Dutch-Americans. Wisconsin will have an open primary, which strongly favors Trump.

“The Yankee (i.e. ancestrally English) element in New England and the Midwest won’t like him either.”

-He won Vermont (can’t get more English than that!) in the primaries, didn’t he? Vermont is very anti-Cruz.

"Scandinavian disadvantage? Who knows? Minnesota had caucuses, in which Trump does worse."

Trump didn't just lose the MN caucuses, he took third, the only state I can think of that he didn't take first or second. The contempt and hatred for Trump here in MN is palpable, and among Scandinavian-descended cuts across class and gender lines. They really do like their leaders humble and egalitarian-- think Walter Mondale. Trump may do slightly better in WI where the Germanic predominates over the Scandinavian, in contrast to MN where it is the opposite.

While his rise in the polls is attributed to his challenging the establishment and the political status quo, let’s look at the many ways Donald Trump, when it comes to his political positions, represents that very same status quo. From the Fed, to war, to civil liberties, the “anti-establishment?” Trump takes no positions not already endorsed by the establishment.

Palin was served up severely compared to Dan Quayle. I don’t think a man with Palin’s resume and beliefs would have got the same derision. Women are just more vulnerable when being judged on supposedly objective criteria.

Obama, who everyone thought the US was not ready for as pres, defeated Clinton who had seemed unstoppable.

Obama’s ‘likable’ put-down.

She breaks down and cries

For a while she was looking vulnerable to Bernie, who should not have been competitive. While she would be slightly younger than Reagan was when he became pres, Hillary is going to be a 69 year old, who suffered a serious concussion and blood clot not that long ago.

Palin was served up severely compared to Dan Quayle. I don’t think a man with Palin’s resume and beliefs would have got the same derision.

The MSM went after Palin because of her political views and her rhetoric and the fact that she was not a "feminist." (Look at the complete picture, her family is like reality TV:
Rednecks in Alaska, and it is always open season on us rednecks.) It is the political beliefs that they go after. Look at how dismissive they are of black conservatives. Political rhetoric does matter. Republican voters support and elect women and blacks if their political rhetoric is correct. Utah elected a black female representative this last cycle. The people that hate Hillary hate her because of her politics. The fact that she is a woman is a just an afterthought bonus.

Cruz's support is all crazy heretical moonie loonies.WTF?Furriners don't get it.
Saying that if abortion is illegal that there will be penalties is about the most logical statement in American history.Ill chosen?Only to the morons.
Zionist divide and conquer:Will it work its black magic on America again?

Saying that if abortion is illegal that there will be penalties is about the most logical statement in American history.

So far, I've seen no evidence of a German disadvantage for Trump (on a county level). Scandinavian disadvantage? Who knows? Minnesota had caucuses, in which Trump does worse. He does worse than Cruz among Dutch-Americans. Wisconsin will have an open primary, which strongly favors Trump.

"The Yankee (i.e. ancestrally English) element in New England and the Midwest won’t like him either."

-He won Vermont (can't get more English than that!) in the primaries, didn't he? Vermont is very anti-Cruz.

I grew up in Okla and Kansas, and I’ve also been wondering about these patterns.

Best guess: Okla and Kansas and Texas are relatively prosperous right now. Their prosperity depends on oil and wheat, which are EXPORT commodities. They never depended on the industries that have been destroyed by IMPORTS of stuff and labor. So they see protectionism as slowing down EXPORTS, which could harm them.

It's interesting to see how strongly the GOP establishment is swinging behind Cruz even though his immigration policies are now on a par with Trump. I suspect it comes down to trade. The GOP has made a tactical retreat on immigration but refuses to budge on trade, and they are willing to support Cruz who is positioning himself as the hybrid candidate who is populist on immigration but elitist on trade.

Unfortunately, being elitist on trade probably isn't going to cut it with the working class swing voters, who are strongly supporting Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders. If Cruz is nominated he could sweep the resource and farming states in a landslide but still lose the election because he fails to win any of the marginal states in other parts of the country. Another problem is that Cruz has no charisma, and will simply be dismissed as an aloof establishment nerd by many working class whites.

Mind you the Democrats have problems as well. Unlike the Republicans, they can't really afford to make a tactical retreat on any aspect of free trade or open borders, even though both are increasingly unpopular with a lot of undecided voters.

Cruz is a reliable neocon, unlike Trump. Neocohenservatism is the sine qua non of the modern GOP.

So far, I've seen no evidence of a German disadvantage for Trump (on a county level). Scandinavian disadvantage? Who knows? Minnesota had caucuses, in which Trump does worse. He does worse than Cruz among Dutch-Americans. Wisconsin will have an open primary, which strongly favors Trump.

"The Yankee (i.e. ancestrally English) element in New England and the Midwest won’t like him either."

-He won Vermont (can't get more English than that!) in the primaries, didn't he? Vermont is very anti-Cruz.

The fact that Clinton and Cruz do better among registered partisans voting in their respective primaries, while Trump and Sanders do better among independents voting in their respective primaries (the effect is especially clear for Trump, cf., Missouri v. Oklahoma) suggests Trump's more popular among independents than among registered Republicans. But it's uncertain whether he's more popular among independents than Hillary Clinton is. Sanders might be more popular than Trump among independents.

Trump’s more popular among independents than among registered Republicans.

Sure, but that doesn’t mean he is more popular among independents compared to other Republican candidates. The independent voters who like Trump already voted for him in the primaries. The fact that Trump does so poorly in general election polls suggests that he is quite unpopular among independent voters who didn’t vote in the primaries but who will vote in the general election. Despite attracting many independents into the Republican primaries, Trump still has a ceiling of upper 30s/lower 40s in the Republican primaries, which likely translates into a loss in the general election, against a very weak Democratic candidate.

The Trump phenomenon is basically an “own goal” by the Republicans who had neglected the needs of working class white voters.

Trump is good at breaking ceilings, especially when other candidates drop out of the race. The two other candidates remaining have serious conservative credentials which Trump doesn't, which prevents the race from solidifying around him.

"Sure, but that doesn’t mean he is more popular among independents compared to other Republican candidates."

-Why?

"The fact that Trump does so poorly in general election polls suggests that he is quite unpopular among independent voters who didn’t vote in the primaries but who will vote in the general election."

-Popularity in general election polls today is inversely related to press coverage (and actual primary votes). No one's attacking Kasich because nobody sees him as a threat. So his net favorability goes way, way up among non-Republicans. Trump is being attacked like noone else, so his popularity in general election polls today is low. Trump will re-emphasize his message to appeal to the center after he gets the nomination, and will attack Clinton like nobody else.

Trump’s more popular among independents than among registered Republicans.

Sure, but that doesn't mean he is more popular among independents compared to other Republican candidates. The independent voters who like Trump already voted for him in the primaries. The fact that Trump does so poorly in general election polls suggests that he is quite unpopular among independent voters who didn't vote in the primaries but who will vote in the general election. Despite attracting many independents into the Republican primaries, Trump still has a ceiling of upper 30s/lower 40s in the Republican primaries, which likely translates into a loss in the general election, against a very weak Democratic candidate.

The Trump phenomenon is basically an "own goal" by the Republicans who had neglected the needs of working class white voters.

Trump is good at breaking ceilings, especially when other candidates drop out of the race. The two other candidates remaining have serious conservative credentials which Trump doesn’t, which prevents the race from solidifying around him.

“Sure, but that doesn’t mean he is more popular among independents compared to other Republican candidates.”

-Why?

“The fact that Trump does so poorly in general election polls suggests that he is quite unpopular among independent voters who didn’t vote in the primaries but who will vote in the general election.”

-Popularity in general election polls today is inversely related to press coverage (and actual primary votes). No one’s attacking Kasich because nobody sees him as a threat. So his net favorability goes way, way up among non-Republicans. Trump is being attacked like noone else, so his popularity in general election polls today is low. Trump will re-emphasize his message to appeal to the center after he gets the nomination, and will attack Clinton like nobody else.

“Sure, but that doesn’t mean he is more popular among independents compared to other Republican candidates.”

-Why?

His consistent underperformance in the general election polls suggests that people not participating in the primaries really don't like him.

“The fact that Trump does so poorly in general election polls suggests that he is quite unpopular among independent voters who didn’t vote in the primaries but who will vote in the general election.”

-Popularity in general election polls today is inversely related to press coverage (and actual primary votes). No one’s attacking Kasich because nobody sees him as a threat. So his net favorability goes way, way up among non-Republicans. Trump is being attacked like noone else, so his popularity in general election polls today is low. Trump will re-emphasize his message to appeal to the center after he gets the nomination, and will attack Clinton like nobody else.

Both Trump and Clinton are already very well known so their perception among voters probably won't change much for the general election. Kasich won a contentious governorship race in a major state against an incumbent Democrat; any potential dirt on him has probably already been discovered, and didn't amount to much. He's just a boring, competent pre-Bush, pre-Tea Party middle-of-the-road midwestern Republican. He would easily beat unlikable and unpleasant Hillary. In contrast, even-more-unlikable Trump loses to her.

Latest poll shows Kasich beating CLinton in WI by 14 points. Trump loses to her by 10 points in that state.

Palin was served up severely compared to Dan Quayle. I don't think a man with Palin's resume and beliefs would have got the same derision. Women are just more vulnerable when being judged on supposedly objective criteria.

Obama, who everyone thought the US was not ready for as pres, defeated Clinton who had seemed unstoppable.

For a while she was looking vulnerable to Bernie, who should not have been competitive. While she would be slightly younger than Reagan was when he became pres, Hillary is going to be a 69 year old, who suffered a serious concussion and blood clot not that long ago.

Palin was served up severely compared to Dan Quayle. I don’t think a man with Palin’s resume and beliefs would have got the same derision.

The MSM went after Palin because of her political views and her rhetoric and the fact that she was not a “feminist.” (Look at the complete picture, her family is like reality TV:Rednecks in Alaska, and it is always open season on us rednecks.) It is the political beliefs that they go after. Look at how dismissive they are of black conservatives. Political rhetoric does matter. Republican voters support and elect women and blacks if their political rhetoric is correct. Utah elected a black female representative this last cycle. The people that hate Hillary hate her because of her politics. The fact that she is a woman is a just an afterthought bonus.

Might the distinction between the two groupings be summarized (very roughly) this way: the Woodward nations reflect genes and the Cohn nations reflect culture? Then, the better fit of the Cohn map suggests that culture doesn't reduce to genetics.

Might the distinction between the two groupings be summarized (very roughly) this way: the Woodward nations reflect genes and the Cohn nations reflect culture?

I live in the county of Ayrshire, where (contrary to what you keep saying) most of the Ulster Scots came from . See this map. South west Scotland is actually quite similar to East Anglia inasmuch as it has repeatedly been the origin of often successful insurgencies and religious movements from the Freemasons (Mother Lodge), Robert the Bruce at Turnberry Castle (near where Trump has invested BTW) to the Covananters' Sanquhar Declaration.

In the twentieth century, the Covenanters were appropriated as forerunners of the working-class struggle for socialism and equality […] leaders could justifiably point to the early class consciousness of the Covenanters, to their hatred of landowners and aristocrats and their search for a collective society based on equality and mutual support.

It is also, remarkably in view of its sparse pop, the seat of a concentration of accomplishment according to this map. So lets have no more nonsense about the Ulster Scots being from the Borders, eh? By the way I live in the Scottish Kilmarnock, not the one in Virginia.

Anyway, it seems to me that unless they are robots the people in areas will exercise ecological rationality that overbears ancestral propensities the wealth of the population is an important factor. Now the Ulster Scots were from land where the valleys were boggy. The Germans often knew bette. It seems to me that midwest farmers are relatively wealthy. The Scandinavian and Germans disproportionately benefitted from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts. You cannot really say those communities would be voting the same if they were concentrated in barren mountains and rustbelts.

I live in the county of Ayrshire, where (contrary to what you keep saying) most of the Ulster Scots came from

Many of the immigrants to America that make up the wave of the “Scots Irish” came directly from the English-Scottish border areas. See David Hackett Fischer.

Anyway, it seems to me that unless they are robots the people in areas will exercise ecological rationality that overbears ancestral propensities the wealth of the population is an important factor.

Like I said, free will does not exist.

You cannot really say those communities would be voting the same if they were concentrated in barren mountains and rustbelts.

Why are those areas Rust Belts?

Trump is not all that strong in the Midlands, which right in the middle of the Rust Belt. Ethnicity is a better fit.

Interesting. I have some background in linguistics, and Woodard's map looks an awful lot like dialectological maps of North America, e.g. the so-called "Inland North" dialect grouping that covers "Yankeedom", or "Greater Appalachia" corresponding to the "Inland South" dialect continuum (not to be confused with "Coastal South"). Your own point about the settlement of immigrants in the eastern parts of some, but not all, "nations" meshes with this quite well: we'd expect the incomers to assimilate linguistically, but not genetically. It's interesting that quite possibly they have altered the local political landscape, even as they assimilated in other ways.

Garreau's map may also have some good sociological basis, but it does not match the historical settlement patterns so well; the correspondence to linguistic isoglosses is also much weaker.

Interesting. I have some background in linguistics, and Woodard’s map looks an awful lot like dialectological maps of North America, e.g. the so-called “Inland North” dialect grouping that covers “Yankeedom”, or “Greater Appalachia” corresponding to the “Inland South” dialect continuum (not to be confused with “Coastal South”).

Trump has won 35% of 35%, the republican party comprises 35% of this country. So even if there were no other confounding factors like
1) regional favorites
2) open primaries verses closed primaries
3) timing when the primary took place
4) caucuses verses regular primary election

your analysis of what is “Trump country” is fundamentally flawed.

But anyway this election cycle is absolutely fascinating and I don’t mind your trying to see where the Trump support comes from. I just don’t think your methodology works, you have to look at state polls and percentages of likely voters who would vote for Trump or you are looking at meaningless numbers.

What I encourage you to report on Anatoly is that it is looking more and more like Trump will go into the Republican convention with something a little short of the 1237 delegates required to win on the first ballot and then the powers that be within the republican party are conspiring to take the nomination from him. I am not a Trump fan by any means but that sure doesn’t seem democratic to me.

it is looking more and more like Trump will go into the Republican convention with something a little short of the 1237 delegates required to win on the first ballot and then the powers that be within the republican party are conspiring to take the nomination from him. I am not a Trump fan by any means but that sure doesn’t seem democratic to me.

If he comes really close to 50% probably, but if he's lower in the 40s then this is certainly not undemocratic. He got a minority of votes and has no reason to expect the nomination on the basis of democracy. If Cruz + Kasich + Rubio collectively got more votes and agreed on someone other than Trump, this would be more democratic...

Trump has won 35% of 35%, the republican party comprises 35% of this country. So even if there were no other confounding factors like
1) regional favorites
2) open primaries verses closed primaries
3) timing when the primary took place
4) caucuses verses regular primary election

your analysis of what is "Trump country" is fundamentally flawed.

But anyway this election cycle is absolutely fascinating and I don't mind your trying to see where the Trump support comes from. I just don't think your methodology works, you have to look at state polls and percentages of likely voters who would vote for Trump or you are looking at meaningless numbers.

What I encourage you to report on Anatoly is that it is looking more and more like Trump will go into the Republican convention with something a little short of the 1237 delegates required to win on the first ballot and then the powers that be within the republican party are conspiring to take the nomination from him. I am not a Trump fan by any means but that sure doesn't seem democratic to me.

I am not a Trump fan by any means but that sure doesn’t seem democratic to me.

It has been a long time in coming for me (over 50 years) but one really has to ignore a lot of facts to think that what we have qualifies as a democracy.

are there maps showing ethnic origins? i e where do/did most Irish settle, most English, Chinese settle; most Italians; most Germans, etc.
better way of saying it –is there a map showing population centers of Irish, English, Chinese, Italians, Germans in USA

are there maps showing ethnic origins? i e where do/did most Irish settle, most English, Chinese settle; most Italians; most Germans, etc. better way of saying it --is there a map showing population centers of Irish, English, Chinese, Italians, Germans in USA

are there maps showing ethnic origins? i e where do/did most Irish settle, most English, Chinese settle; most Italians; most Germans, etc.

... or even manipulate arcane Electoral College rules from the 19th century to invalidate his Presidency should he win the popular vote.

Ouch. A fine piece, except for this fly in the soup. The Electoral College "rules" are federal, not "arcane". There is no popular vote-- each state has its own voting requirements. Today they differ on ID, registration deadline, method of tabulation, etc, rather than race, sex, or age. But they're still very real. Combining them is cheating.

Also, look at the difference between understanding the EC, and not getting it: George Wallace vs H Ross Perot. Perot got a far higher percentage of the so-called popular vote, but didn't carry a single state. He was second in two. Had he concentrated on carrying those and building a bloc of states from there, he could have thrown the election into the House, and had a hell of a lot more influence than he had.

This is precisely what Wallace was after. His five states-- which went mostly for Goldwater, and were FDR's best-- threatened to deprive the top candidate of an EC majority. Nixon was able to cobble one together just barely, but it scared the bejezus out of the establishment.

Glad to see someone with at least some institutional reactionary spirit among all this democracy talk.

What do you call a man who wins the electoral college and loses the popular vote? “Mr. President”. Since all that stuff is also in the constitution, it’s part of the oath everyone swore to uphold.

So far, I've seen no evidence of a German disadvantage for Trump (on a county level). Scandinavian disadvantage? Who knows? Minnesota had caucuses, in which Trump does worse. He does worse than Cruz among Dutch-Americans. Wisconsin will have an open primary, which strongly favors Trump.

"The Yankee (i.e. ancestrally English) element in New England and the Midwest won’t like him either."

-He won Vermont (can't get more English than that!) in the primaries, didn't he? Vermont is very anti-Cruz.

“Scandinavian disadvantage? Who knows? Minnesota had caucuses, in which Trump does worse.”

Trump didn’t just lose the MN caucuses, he took third, the only state I can think of that he didn’t take first or second. The contempt and hatred for Trump here in MN is palpable, and among Scandinavian-descended cuts across class and gender lines. They really do like their leaders humble and egalitarian– think Walter Mondale. Trump may do slightly better in WI where the Germanic predominates over the Scandinavian, in contrast to MN where it is the opposite.

It doesn't matter what policies Trump espouses, he is going to lose in a landslide because he is so horrifically unpopular on a personal level. And not just with women: He even has a 51% negative rating with white men.

Support for a fence on the Mexican border has collapsed down to 38%, because Trump's radioactivity contaminates the policies he is associated with.

The theory that Trump might win by energizing the white working class and scrambling the map wasn't completely implausible, when he was only losing to Hillary! by three or four points in the polling averages. But when he's losing to her by an average of eleven points, it's outright delusional.

A Trump nomination would be an absolute disaster for nationalists and the alt-right. His epic defeat will be wrongly blamed on his pro-borders pronouncements, and the GOP establishment will claim vindication. If the GOP Senate and House go down with him, which is quite possible, Democrats will ram through an immigration bill to the left of the Gang of Eight. Even if the GOP holds the House, there's a good chance that Speaker Ryan will strike some sort of amnesty deal with the Democratic Senate and White House.

And even if by some miracle Trump overcomes a double-digit polling deficit and wins the White House. it's unlikely he'll be much better on immigration than Cruz would have (in fact, having backed off his past support for H1-B increases, Cruz actually has a slightly better NumbersUSA grade than Trump). Trump has never explicitly promised to cut overall legal immigration levels. He has promised some form of touchback amnesty for an unspecified number of "good" illegals. He's defended "guest worker" programs in the debates using the "jobs Americans won't do" canard. So what exactly is it about Trump that makes him so much better than Cruz, it's worth it for immigration hawks to gamble on him, depite the fact that Cruz polls eight points better against Hillary!? Sure, Cruz would probably lose too, but by a Romney-esqe rather than Mondale-esqe margin, making it more likely that the GOP holds Congress.

Imagine Trump losing Utah… but winning New York. Sounds completely impossible, but all sorts of impossible things have been Happening in this campaign, so really – why not?

Because one way in which this campaign hasn't been unusual, is that the polls have basically been right. The most recent poll, from Quinnipiac (taken before the abortion debacle), shows Hillary! beating Trump in NY by 20 points. That's only four points better than Cruz, despite it being his home state and Cruz having denigrated "NY values."

Cruz will do worse than Trump in the swing states of Ohio, PA, Florida and thus cannot beat Hillary. there has been almost no attacks against Cruz, as all the PAC money has been spent attacking Trump. Once he has to face scrutiny and voters get to know him, his poll numbers against Hillary will drop. The media has ignored Cruz, as they continue to attack Trump. Thus all the negatives about Trump are out in the open, His poll numbers will soar after he is nominated and the GOP is behind him to beat Hillary.

Trump will win all the states Romney won and just needs Ohio, PA and Florida. Trump may even win New Hampshire and NJ (if he gets 15% of the black vote). this is why the media fears Trump and has not been criticizing Cruz. They know Hillary will easily beat Cruz once the Media and democrats start targeting him.

Trump has won 35% of 35%, the republican party comprises 35% of this country. So even if there were no other confounding factors like
1) regional favorites
2) open primaries verses closed primaries
3) timing when the primary took place
4) caucuses verses regular primary election

your analysis of what is "Trump country" is fundamentally flawed.

But anyway this election cycle is absolutely fascinating and I don't mind your trying to see where the Trump support comes from. I just don't think your methodology works, you have to look at state polls and percentages of likely voters who would vote for Trump or you are looking at meaningless numbers.

What I encourage you to report on Anatoly is that it is looking more and more like Trump will go into the Republican convention with something a little short of the 1237 delegates required to win on the first ballot and then the powers that be within the republican party are conspiring to take the nomination from him. I am not a Trump fan by any means but that sure doesn't seem democratic to me.

it is looking more and more like Trump will go into the Republican convention with something a little short of the 1237 delegates required to win on the first ballot and then the powers that be within the republican party are conspiring to take the nomination from him. I am not a Trump fan by any means but that sure doesn’t seem democratic to me.

If he comes really close to 50% probably, but if he’s lower in the 40s then this is certainly not undemocratic. He got a minority of votes and has no reason to expect the nomination on the basis of democracy. If Cruz + Kasich + Rubio collectively got more votes and agreed on someone other than Trump, this would be more democratic…

The Wisconsin primary is today and it is expected that Cruz will beat Trump soundly there. But the big delegate states coming up are California and New York and Trump is expected to easily out delegate Cruz in these two states. Of course if Trump has more terrible weeks where he shoots himself repeatedly in the feet than all bets are off, but I expect those repeated blunders by Trump were an anomaly. So with these projections in mind we can see Trump falling short of 1237 but not by very much.

The powers that be within the republican party can take the nomination away from Trump if they really want to BUT the real question is if that is in their long term interest. I agree with multiple opinions that Trump will lose in a landslide to Clinton. He has made too many enemies with a bright red arrow pointed right at women in particular. But the real question is does the republican party want to lose one presidential election with Trump at the head of the ticket or alienate all the Trump supporters by taking the nomination away from Trump.

I see your point that if Cruz finishes strong and closes the gap with Trump than my speculations become a non issue. But studying the poll projections that isn't likely. Trump has a solid lead of 752 delegates to Cruz with 463. If Trump goes into the convention with a lead of over 300 delegates over Cruz, and I expect he will, then the party bosses of the republican party will have a choice of losing one of two way come November.

With Cruz at the head of the ticket and every Trump supporter pissed off and alienated at the republican party. Or Trump at the head of the ticket and these Trump supporters staying in the republican fold for elections to come. My guess is the party bosses will think long term and nominate Trump.

Trump is good at breaking ceilings, especially when other candidates drop out of the race. The two other candidates remaining have serious conservative credentials which Trump doesn't, which prevents the race from solidifying around him.

"Sure, but that doesn’t mean he is more popular among independents compared to other Republican candidates."

-Why?

"The fact that Trump does so poorly in general election polls suggests that he is quite unpopular among independent voters who didn’t vote in the primaries but who will vote in the general election."

-Popularity in general election polls today is inversely related to press coverage (and actual primary votes). No one's attacking Kasich because nobody sees him as a threat. So his net favorability goes way, way up among non-Republicans. Trump is being attacked like noone else, so his popularity in general election polls today is low. Trump will re-emphasize his message to appeal to the center after he gets the nomination, and will attack Clinton like nobody else.

“Sure, but that doesn’t mean he is more popular among independents compared to other Republican candidates.”

-Why?

His consistent underperformance in the general election polls suggests that people not participating in the primaries really don’t like him.

“The fact that Trump does so poorly in general election polls suggests that he is quite unpopular among independent voters who didn’t vote in the primaries but who will vote in the general election.”

-Popularity in general election polls today is inversely related to press coverage (and actual primary votes). No one’s attacking Kasich because nobody sees him as a threat. So his net favorability goes way, way up among non-Republicans. Trump is being attacked like noone else, so his popularity in general election polls today is low. Trump will re-emphasize his message to appeal to the center after he gets the nomination, and will attack Clinton like nobody else.

Both Trump and Clinton are already very well known so their perception among voters probably won’t change much for the general election. Kasich won a contentious governorship race in a major state against an incumbent Democrat; any potential dirt on him has probably already been discovered, and didn’t amount to much. He’s just a boring, competent pre-Bush, pre-Tea Party middle-of-the-road midwestern Republican. He would easily beat unlikable and unpleasant Hillary. In contrast, even-more-unlikable Trump loses to her.

Latest poll shows Kasich beating CLinton in WI by 14 points. Trump loses to her by 10 points in that state.

"The two biggest exceptions – that prove the rule – are Texas and Ohio..."

Exceptions don't prove rules, they disprove them. This is a common misconception in the language that arises from the fact that an older meaning of 'prove' meant something along the lines of 'test', so if we apply that meaning, this saying makes more sense: the exception that tests the rule.

It’s meaning generally is data point or set of data points which disprove the rule as an absolute rule, but whose rarity proves it as a general rule.

“Latest poll shows Kasich beating CLinton in WI by 14 points. Trump loses to her by 10 points in that state.”

-Both of these estimates are squarely ridiculous for evaluating general election prospects. I’m willing to believe a one to two-point Kasich advantage, especially in Ohio and New Hampshire. Ten points is just ridiculous.

And Trump hasn’t even started on Hillary. Wait for the Summer Offensive, man.

“Latest poll shows Kasich beating CLinton in WI by 14 points. Trump loses to her by 10 points in that state.”

-Both of these estimates are squarely ridiculous for evaluating general election prospects. I’m willing to believe a one to two-point Kasich advantage, especially in Ohio and New Hampshire. Ten points is just ridiculous

In Wisconsin, Kasich beat Hillary by 14 points in the 3/30-4/3 Emerson poll, 9 points in the Marquette Poll.

In Ohio, Kasich beats Hillary by 21 points in the March NBC poll, 17 points in the February Quinnipiac poll. Clinton beats Trump by 6 points NBC, loses to him by 2 points Quinnipiac.

And Trump hasn’t even started on Hillary. Wait for the Summer Offensive, man.

What can he say that isn't already well-known about her? Her image isn't going to be changed much, for better or worse, at this stage. Same for Trump. And his attacks will just be spun as abusiveness towards women.

30% of the electorate is minority. They vote about 83% Democrat. The only way a Republican ever wins is through vote-counting corruption, which is endemic. Unless a Republican can appeal to more minorities.

Also there was repeated fraud in the primary vote-counts. Bernie actually won quite a few more states.

"Latest poll shows Kasich beating CLinton in WI by 14 points. Trump loses to her by 10 points in that state."

-Both of these estimates are squarely ridiculous for evaluating general election prospects. I'm willing to believe a one to two-point Kasich advantage, especially in Ohio and New Hampshire. Ten points is just ridiculous.

And Trump hasn't even started on Hillary. Wait for the Summer Offensive, man.

“Latest poll shows Kasich beating CLinton in WI by 14 points. Trump loses to her by 10 points in that state.”

-Both of these estimates are squarely ridiculous for evaluating general election prospects. I’m willing to believe a one to two-point Kasich advantage, especially in Ohio and New Hampshire. Ten points is just ridiculous

In Wisconsin, Kasich beat Hillary by 14 points in the 3/30-4/3 Emerson poll, 9 points in the Marquette Poll.

In Ohio, Kasich beats Hillary by 21 points in the March NBC poll, 17 points in the February Quinnipiac poll. Clinton beats Trump by 6 points NBC, loses to him by 2 points Quinnipiac.

And Trump hasn’t even started on Hillary. Wait for the Summer Offensive, man.

What can he say that isn’t already well-known about her? Her image isn’t going to be changed much, for better or worse, at this stage. Same for Trump. And his attacks will just be spun as abusiveness towards women.

One big thing I don't recall you taking into account is that if Trump loses the nomination and is perceived as having lost it because of dirty tricks and collusion a lot of Republicans are going to desert whoever does get nominated.

This isn't just on the Internet (http://www.unz.com/akarlin/trumps-seven-nations/#comment-1376147) and amongst Alt Right otakus btw.

The other day I was meeting with a Jewish Russian and his (Russian) Russian wife. Although they had some major political differences - essentially, she is a Russian nationalist, while he is a Jewish nationalist - they were both conservatives and strong Trump supporters and both said they'd vote for Hillary out of spite if Trump wasn't chosen.

Of course there has been little if any polling about such a scenario, but my cursory impression is that this factor will be very significant.

My predictions if this happens:

(1) One of the lowest turnouts ever.

(2) Hillary wins by a huge margin. I literally expect the Republicans to get what they did in 1964 + Utah.

“Latest poll shows Kasich beating CLinton in WI by 14 points. Trump loses to her by 10 points in that state.”

-Both of these estimates are squarely ridiculous for evaluating general election prospects. I’m willing to believe a one to two-point Kasich advantage, especially in Ohio and New Hampshire. Ten points is just ridiculous

In Wisconsin, Kasich beat Hillary by 14 points in the 3/30-4/3 Emerson poll, 9 points in the Marquette Poll.

In Ohio, Kasich beats Hillary by 21 points in the March NBC poll, 17 points in the February Quinnipiac poll. Clinton beats Trump by 6 points NBC, loses to him by 2 points Quinnipiac.

And Trump hasn’t even started on Hillary. Wait for the Summer Offensive, man.

What can he say that isn't already well-known about her? Her image isn't going to be changed much, for better or worse, at this stage. Same for Trump. And his attacks will just be spun as abusiveness towards women.

One big thing I don’t recall you taking into account is that if Trump loses the nomination and is perceived as having lost it because of dirty tricks and collusion a lot of Republicans are going to desert whoever does get nominated.

The other day I was meeting with a Jewish Russian and his (Russian) Russian wife. Although they had some major political differences – essentially, she is a Russian nationalist, while he is a Jewish nationalist – they were both conservatives and strong Trump supporters and both said they’d vote for Hillary out of spite if Trump wasn’t chosen.

Of course there has been little if any polling about such a scenario, but my cursory impression is that this factor will be very significant.

My predictions if this happens:

(1) One of the lowest turnouts ever.

(2) Hillary wins by a huge margin. I literally expect the Republicans to get what they did in 1964 + Utah.

One big thing I don’t recall you taking into account is that if Trump loses the nomination and is perceived as having lost it because of dirty tricks and collusion a lot of Republicans are going to desert whoever does get nominated.

Well, that’s a big “if.” your prediction is likely to happen if Trump misses the target by, say, a dozen or two delegates. But if, as is more likely, he staggers into a plurality with diminishing support and the majority of delegates end up choosing someone else, it will probably be a different story.

Trump losing the general election is a near-certainty at this point (though admittedly this has been an unpredictable election). OTOH it is far from certain how many bitter Trump supporters will vote for Hillary and all she represents (affirmative action, BLM pandering, Bengazi, etc.) out of spite. It would be interesting to see how many Trump supporters will vote Clinton or effectively choose Clinton by staying home, if she chooses that Mexican San Antonio mayor as her running mate. Probably, not many. The number of hardcore Trump supporters wanting to sink America out of spite is probably not huge and is dwarfed by suburban independents.

The other day I was meeting with a Jewish Russian and his (Russian) Russian wife. Although they had some major political differences – essentially, she is a Russian nationalist, while he is a Jewish nationalist – they were both conservatives and strong Trump supporters and both said they’d vote for Hillary out of spite if Trump wasn’t chosen.

Trump is clearly better for Russia; so, it’s not surprising (though none of the Russians or Russian Jews I know – all Republicans – are Trump supporters; though most would vote for Trump or any Republican vs. Clinton). I suspect your perceptions are skewed by lots of contact Russian-American voters and alt-right types.

If Trump misses the mark by a tiny number of delegates and gets the nomination yanked away from him, your predictions are realistic. If, more likely, he has a plurality but is far from winning, and actually shows that his support is fading as the primary process winds up, and someone like Kasich gets nominated, the small number of hardcore Trump voters will be offset by large numbers of less politically passionate independent voters choosing Kasich over the unlikable Hillary. In that case, Kasich will have all of Romney’s states plus Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Virginia, Michigan (he’s beating Hillary by 5 points in a late March poll in that state). It will be an easy Republican victory.

Is the purpose of the primaries and nomination process to choose someone who is more likely to win the presidency for the party, or rather to reflect who is more popular among Republican primary voters? Ideally, the two phenomena would be in sync. But ultimately, given that the loser of the presidential election gets nothing (unlike in a parliamentary system where proportion of parliament is at stake), the victory of a passionate plurality that guarantees handing the presidency over to the other party is rather meaningless.

it is looking more and more like Trump will go into the Republican convention with something a little short of the 1237 delegates required to win on the first ballot and then the powers that be within the republican party are conspiring to take the nomination from him. I am not a Trump fan by any means but that sure doesn’t seem democratic to me.

If he comes really close to 50% probably, but if he's lower in the 40s then this is certainly not undemocratic. He got a minority of votes and has no reason to expect the nomination on the basis of democracy. If Cruz + Kasich + Rubio collectively got more votes and agreed on someone other than Trump, this would be more democratic...

The Wisconsin primary is today and it is expected that Cruz will beat Trump soundly there. But the big delegate states coming up are California and New York and Trump is expected to easily out delegate Cruz in these two states. Of course if Trump has more terrible weeks where he shoots himself repeatedly in the feet than all bets are off, but I expect those repeated blunders by Trump were an anomaly. So with these projections in mind we can see Trump falling short of 1237 but not by very much.

The powers that be within the republican party can take the nomination away from Trump if they really want to BUT the real question is if that is in their long term interest. I agree with multiple opinions that Trump will lose in a landslide to Clinton. He has made too many enemies with a bright red arrow pointed right at women in particular. But the real question is does the republican party want to lose one presidential election with Trump at the head of the ticket or alienate all the Trump supporters by taking the nomination away from Trump.

I see your point that if Cruz finishes strong and closes the gap with Trump than my speculations become a non issue. But studying the poll projections that isn’t likely. Trump has a solid lead of 752 delegates to Cruz with 463. If Trump goes into the convention with a lead of over 300 delegates over Cruz, and I expect he will, then the party bosses of the republican party will have a choice of losing one of two way come November.

With Cruz at the head of the ticket and every Trump supporter pissed off and alienated at the republican party. Or Trump at the head of the ticket and these Trump supporters staying in the republican fold for elections to come. My guess is the party bosses will think long term and nominate Trump.

I see your point that if Cruz finishes strong and closes the gap with Trump than my speculations become a non issue. But studying the poll projections that isn’t likely.

The likely scenario is that Trump will still be around 40%, outnumbered by the others collectively. If the others, who collectively have more than Trump's 40% support, agree amongst themselves on a non-Trump, the result might not be so controversial. A Cruz-Kasich ticket would represent more votes than Trump got, in the later contests.

If Trump goes into the convention with a lead of over 300 delegates over Cruz, and I expect he will, then the party bosses of the republican party will have a choice of losing one of two way come November.

With Cruz at the head of the ticket and every Trump supporter pissed off and alienated at the republican party. Or Trump at the head of the ticket and these Trump supporters staying in the republican fold for elections to come. My guess is the party bosses will think long term and nominate Trump.

Or they could nominate the guy who consistently and easily beats Clinton in all polls- Kasich - and just win the election. Kasich doesn't seem to have really angered anyone; it is possible that Trump won't explode against him in such a situation. Would Cruz acquiesce to being a VP on such a ticket? Giving himself some (vicarious) executive experience and setting himself up for being the man in 4 or 8 years - he is still a young 45.

The Wisconsin primary is today and it is expected that Cruz will beat Trump soundly there. But the big delegate states coming up are California and New York and Trump is expected to easily out delegate Cruz in these two states. Of course if Trump has more terrible weeks where he shoots himself repeatedly in the feet than all bets are off, but I expect those repeated blunders by Trump were an anomaly. So with these projections in mind we can see Trump falling short of 1237 but not by very much.

The powers that be within the republican party can take the nomination away from Trump if they really want to BUT the real question is if that is in their long term interest. I agree with multiple opinions that Trump will lose in a landslide to Clinton. He has made too many enemies with a bright red arrow pointed right at women in particular. But the real question is does the republican party want to lose one presidential election with Trump at the head of the ticket or alienate all the Trump supporters by taking the nomination away from Trump.

I see your point that if Cruz finishes strong and closes the gap with Trump than my speculations become a non issue. But studying the poll projections that isn't likely. Trump has a solid lead of 752 delegates to Cruz with 463. If Trump goes into the convention with a lead of over 300 delegates over Cruz, and I expect he will, then the party bosses of the republican party will have a choice of losing one of two way come November.

With Cruz at the head of the ticket and every Trump supporter pissed off and alienated at the republican party. Or Trump at the head of the ticket and these Trump supporters staying in the republican fold for elections to come. My guess is the party bosses will think long term and nominate Trump.

The Wisconsin primary is today and it is expected that Cruz will beat Trump soundly there.

Trump may not get a single delegate in WI. Kasich has a shot of winning a few there (he is competitive in one district).

But the big delegate states coming up are California and New York and Trump is expected to easily out delegate Cruz in these two states.

I see your point that if Cruz finishes strong and closes the gap with Trump than my speculations become a non issue. But studying the poll projections that isn’t likely.

The likely scenario is that Trump will still be around 40%, outnumbered by the others collectively. If the others, who collectively have more than Trump’s 40% support, agree amongst themselves on a non-Trump, the result might not be so controversial. A Cruz-Kasich ticket would represent more votes than Trump got, in the later contests.

If Trump goes into the convention with a lead of over 300 delegates over Cruz, and I expect he will, then the party bosses of the republican party will have a choice of losing one of two way come November.

With Cruz at the head of the ticket and every Trump supporter pissed off and alienated at the republican party. Or Trump at the head of the ticket and these Trump supporters staying in the republican fold for elections to come. My guess is the party bosses will think long term and nominate Trump.

Or they could nominate the guy who consistently and easily beats Clinton in all polls- Kasich – and just win the election. Kasich doesn’t seem to have really angered anyone; it is possible that Trump won’t explode against him in such a situation. Would Cruz acquiesce to being a VP on such a ticket? Giving himself some (vicarious) executive experience and setting himself up for being the man in 4 or 8 years – he is still a young 45.

It is a pleasure to talk with someone level headed and knowledgable about politics AP. You are right about California, Trump will not win it because it is 38% hispanic and they hate that guy.

However my estimate that Trump will get to over 1100 delegates is confirmed by www.fivethirtyeight.com even after the trouncing that Cruz gave Trump in Wisconsin. 538 now estimates that Trump will get 1180 delegates that have to vote for him the first ballot. After that 538 also predicts that they will abandon him in droves. If that happens...wow. Cleveland and Trump supporters will go nuts.

Certainly it seems that cruz has turned an important corner will the impressive numbers he put up in Wisconsin but we shall see. Wisconsin has always been a unusual state, Sanders stomped Clinton there while Clinton has a first ballot nomination virtually assured.

[…] had two weeks to buy off every pol, talk show host and newspaper writer. Wisconsin is one of those weird breadbasket states where being nice counts for more than being right so Trump was always going to be vulnerable there. […]

I see your point that if Cruz finishes strong and closes the gap with Trump than my speculations become a non issue. But studying the poll projections that isn’t likely.

The likely scenario is that Trump will still be around 40%, outnumbered by the others collectively. If the others, who collectively have more than Trump's 40% support, agree amongst themselves on a non-Trump, the result might not be so controversial. A Cruz-Kasich ticket would represent more votes than Trump got, in the later contests.

If Trump goes into the convention with a lead of over 300 delegates over Cruz, and I expect he will, then the party bosses of the republican party will have a choice of losing one of two way come November.

With Cruz at the head of the ticket and every Trump supporter pissed off and alienated at the republican party. Or Trump at the head of the ticket and these Trump supporters staying in the republican fold for elections to come. My guess is the party bosses will think long term and nominate Trump.

Or they could nominate the guy who consistently and easily beats Clinton in all polls- Kasich - and just win the election. Kasich doesn't seem to have really angered anyone; it is possible that Trump won't explode against him in such a situation. Would Cruz acquiesce to being a VP on such a ticket? Giving himself some (vicarious) executive experience and setting himself up for being the man in 4 or 8 years - he is still a young 45.

It is a pleasure to talk with someone level headed and knowledgable about politics AP. You are right about California, Trump will not win it because it is 38% hispanic and they hate that guy.

However my estimate that Trump will get to over 1100 delegates is confirmed by http://www.fivethirtyeight.com even after the trouncing that Cruz gave Trump in Wisconsin. 538 now estimates that Trump will get 1180 delegates that have to vote for him the first ballot. After that 538 also predicts that they will abandon him in droves. If that happens…wow. Cleveland and Trump supporters will go nuts.

Certainly it seems that cruz has turned an important corner will the impressive numbers he put up in Wisconsin but we shall see. Wisconsin has always been a unusual state, Sanders stomped Clinton there while Clinton has a first ballot nomination virtually assured.

It is a pleasure to talk with someone level headed and knowledgable about politics AP. You are right about California, Trump will not win it because it is 38% hispanic and they hate that guy.

However my estimate that Trump will get to over 1100 delegates is confirmed by www.fivethirtyeight.com even after the trouncing that Cruz gave Trump in Wisconsin. 538 now estimates that Trump will get 1180 delegates that have to vote for him the first ballot. After that 538 also predicts that they will abandon him in droves. If that happens...wow. Cleveland and Trump supporters will go nuts.

Certainly it seems that cruz has turned an important corner will the impressive numbers he put up in Wisconsin but we shall see. Wisconsin has always been a unusual state, Sanders stomped Clinton there while Clinton has a first ballot nomination virtually assured.

It is a pleasure to talk with someone level headed and knowledgable about politics AP.

Likewise. But, I’m off for vacation for 2 weeks…beach but no computer.

Where will they come from, this dream candidate Trump's failure would be ruining the future prospects for? Trump is the best of what there actually is, and he was a long time building up to this. Anyone else promising a wall would have a much tougher job to get this close to being elected . He is not of the religious right, and not locked into Wall Street and existing foreign policies. He is going to have to articulate the interests of manufacturing and Israel and if he indicates willingness to give some help on those issues has a reasonable chance of getting important Republican party sectors on his side.

The animus against Palin was partly because she is a woman. Polls certainly do not overstate Trump's support but I wonder about Clinton's. I suspect Trump supporters may be much more likely to refuse to tell pollsters or mislead as to their true intentions. In the worst case, I can't see how Trump running and failing would leave serious immigration control proposals any worse off than they were before.

One point that isn’t made often enough this election cycle is the Enthusiasm Gap.

Almost nobody is excited about Hillary, in fact, one of the reasons she is not being automatically coronated is because of the Youth Enthusiasm for Bernie.

On the Republican side, it would be Kasich or Jeb! right now if not for the enthusiasm of Trump voters.

In a contest of enthusiasm between Trump and Hillary, the former clearly has the edge.

It’s not just who prefers whom, but who actually gets their tuchas in the polling booth in November.

Many “yuck, Trump” and “Hillary, I guess” people just won’t be arsed to do it, and that’s how Trump can win. It’s how Obama won twice: McCain and especially Romney were weak and unappealing candidates; the white working class/suburban vote stayed home.

Other factors: A weakening economy, and a terror attack – even in Europe – could turn the tide.